Data journalism busts speeding cops, wins Pulitzer - <AUTHOR> http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-04-15/news/fl-sun-sentinel-pulitzer-prize-20130415_1_law-enforcement-officers-database-journalism <comment><USER2> >The reporters found nearly 800 officers who reached speeds of 90-130 mph, many of them while off duty. The accidents caused by officers driving at high speeds had caused at least 320 crashes since 2004, killing or maiming 21 people.

That's such a horrifying statistic if true. Even at their peak, homicide offending rates in the US were at around 20 per 100,000; assault rates about 10 times as high: <http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf>

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but in my mind I'm comparing 20 homicides per 100,000 citizens to to 21 people killed/maimed by a group that is orders of magnitude smaller: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Police_Department>

I think this is just another reminder that Bruce Schneier is right when he says we should be more worried about car accidents than terrorism.

<comment><USER3> Frustrating? Yes. Shocking? No.

Did anyone really believe that taking a job as a police officer somehow suppressed these people's natural desire to drive fast? Hell, that's probably what make them join the force in the first place. Sure, it's irresponsible and illegal for off-duty officers to speed, but it's also irresponsible and illegal for regular citizens to speed, and yet that doesn't seem to stop them from doing it. Why would you expect the cops to be any different? Do you hold them to a higher level of moral responsibility during their off time because of what they do for a living?

Being a police officer is a job. Unless you wanna have robots do it instead, people are going to do what people are going to do.

<comment><USER4> Well then, let them stop pretending that they're looking out for our safety when they put up a speed trap. If you want to talk about having more reasonable road markings, speed limits, and fines for speeding that's great. It's a conversation that we need to have. But to have a bunch of guys driving around like jerks, on and off duty, extracting a tax from the working stiffs is an insult, and nobody should be surprised that the cops get little sympathy.

> Unless you wanna have robots do it instead

Not really. It's been shown time and again that greedy authorities will compromise on public safety to optimize profit. And, machines tend to have no discretion. Nor is any applied by the authorities. If you show up to an intersection at two am, with nobody in sight, stop, look and proceed safely through a red light, you get the same citation that some jerk gets who blows through on a busy day.

<comment><USER5> My reasoning in that speed traps are for revenue generation instead of safety is over the thought that a visible police presence on the road would more likely cause people to slow down and obey traffic laws. Hiding to ambush a speeder is the same tactic used by a highwayman out for money.

<comment><USER4> I agree. You might also consider the fact that any machinery capable of selectively recording red-light violators, is also capable of warning other drivers, yet such a feature is absent from any that I have seen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This lends to a trend that's way to prevalent as of late: There are no checks and/or balances on the Police; the only discipline comes internally, often as a result of public outcry. Perhaps it's the bias of what you actually hear about, but it seems like the worst that can happen to a Police officer is paid leave.

<comment><USER7> "as of late"? Feels like the lack of checks and balances on the police has been going on for a while.

It's only when something major happens that people take notice, like someone putting together this report, now all of a sudden it's a new trend that's way to prevalent as of late. :P

<comment><USER6> OK, I guess "as of late" means "since the Internet."

<comment><USER8> If anything, I bet it has gotten _better_ since the Internet. Pre-Internet, it would take a local news agency to ferret out problems. Now, problems can be reported by anyone and viewed by many.

<comment><USER9> Which allows people to read about it more often, making them think the problem is worse now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We like to talk about the "10x developer", but journalism has to be the field with the highest disparity in value. Some journalists are worth their weight in gold, and some are worth less than nothing.

</comment><comment><USER11> Nothing makes me more upset than corrupt cops. Obviously the off-duty cops got away with speeding because cops don't give tickets to other cops. That's the real scandal. Corrupt cops undermine the entire legal system, which is much worse than anything any terrorist could ever hope to achieve. They should be treated accordingly!

<comment><USER12> You must be upset a lot

<comment><USER11> Yes I am. (-;

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wow, an officer was FIRED for speeding. That should be the headline right there. I was beginning to think it was impossible for a cop to get themselves fired.

<comment><USER14> One was. Out of 800 found. That should also be a headline.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure you need to fire someone for driving 125mph at 4 o'clock in the morning. The punishment should fit the crime.

<comment><USER16> Is it also kosher to drive while intoxicated at 4 o'clock in the morning? I'm not asking to be snarky, I just don't understand the line of reasoning. It seems like you are saying that engaging is behaviors that are risky to other members of the public are ok as long as nobody is hurt on the specific instance in which you engage in them.

<comment><USER17> I think that idea is that driving at 125mph is less risky at 4am because there are fewer obstacles around. Attempting to drive 125mph at, say, 4pm would be a lot more risky/dangerous.

That said, I don't think that actions outside of work necessarily should mean someone is fired. Using your badge to attempt to get out of trouble, or stating that you feel that speeding is your 'right' (on-duty or off-duty) just because you are a cop, on the other hand...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "The database was so innovative that two law enforcement agencies sent investigators to the newsroom to learn how to replicate it."

Expect your ticket in the mail, while legislation is passed that prevents cops from being held accountable.

<comment><USER19> I'm curious as to the technical details. I can't imagine why investigators couldn't get access to the raw Sun Pass database, which records tag id, toll booth, and a timestamp, if it works anything like my EZ-Pass system. From that, it's trivial to match up enter/exit records and divide the distance by the time to come up with an average speed. The article says they got the data from 12 police departments. I wonder what kind of records they obtained.

<comment><USER20> I wondered the same thing. Perhaps the distance between toll booths is what they measured in the 2500 miles driven? It seems like you should be able to get the data from OSM as well, with a lot less time required!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> John Allen Paulos has been pushing using toll data for speeding citations for decades, most recently here: [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/t/story?id=979...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/t/story?id=97915&page=1&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)

<comment><USER22> There are a number of problems with doing things like this.

The first is that significant speed differentials are extremely dangerous. Uncalibrated speedometers are very common and very inaccurate. Anything that causes guaranteed enforcement is going to reduce safety because people will start religiously following their speedometer instead of the normal flow of traffic, so now you have people driving all different speeds than one another based on how badly and in which direction their speedometer is miscalibrated. On top of that you have a situation where anyone who has made a stop for coffee or gas is exempt from the timer because of the stop, so you put a number of people driving 15MPH over the limit (because they stopped and aren't subject to the timer) on the same road as people driving 15MPH under the limit (because they haven't stopped and their speedometer is inaccurate) and you're going to see more collisions.

Then there is the pragmatic problem. Speeding tickets are big money _because_ the law is enforced sporadically under unpredictable conditions. To generate revenue, enforcement has to be rare enough that it doesn't induce compliance. And the proposed scheme is entirely deterministic. Everyone who doesn't make a stop will discontinue their speeding between toll booths -- which is ostensibly the intended result, except that it means the scheme will generate no money and will deprive the government of existing ticket revenue that would have been generated on that stretch of road. Meanwhile it reduces the need for police presence, which means you'll have to fight the law enforcement unions to boot. It's not at all surprising that there has been little interest in implementing it.

<comment><USER23> Number of times I have stopped for gas on a 30-mile stretch of local toll road: 0.

Why would someone stop, just to get an excuse to speed later, at the same average? The few people drag-racing, maybe. Not the vast majority who want to to arrive at destination ASASP.

You are conjuring up a ridiculous hypothetical and claiming it is the common case.

<comment><USER22> >Why would someone stop, just to get an excuse to speed later, at the same average?

You do understand that there are service plazas on toll roads. People stop for gas because they need gas, not because they want to speed. But once someone has stopped, or intends to stop before the toll booth, they're no longer subject to the timer and end up creating a dangerous speed differential against the drivers who are.

<comment><USER24> On today's roads there are always some people driving over the speed limit. By your logic we should abolish speed limits to remove this "speed differential".

<comment><USER22> You mean like this?

[http://www.motorists.org/press/safe-to-raise-freeway- speed-l...](http://www.motorists.org/press/safe-to-raise-freeway-speed-limits)

Existing speed limits are pointless but mostly harmless _because_ people just ignore them. Their primary purpose is to serve as a source of ticket revenue and an excuse for police to stop any vehicle they don't otherwise have cause to stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm just going to throw this out there,

people don't pass marked cars

so a marked car driving the speed limit causes traffic to back up behind them

for no other reason than to alleviate traffic congestion, it probably makes sense for them to drive 15-20 miles over the speed limit

(that obviously doesn't excuse driving 130 mph)

<comment><USER26> I would argue that for the sake of the law, having a backup of cars behind an officer all doing the speed limit is a _good_ thing. It's called the speed _limit_ , not the speed range. As in, the maximum you're allowed to do on that road in perfect conditions. If we want to enforce the laws, having everyone follow a pace car going exactly the speed limit is a good thing.

Having an officer going 65 in a 55 just to relieve congestion means the law is irrelevant.

<comment><USER27> Also, having pace cars alleviates traffic jams (assuming the pace car is leaving appropriate space in front of him to absorb traffic shocks). This obviously doesn't work in the current situation because no one feels bad passing a cop in a traffic jam, but there's something to this idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A retired Marine I know said roughly "we recruit them with commercials showing guys rappelling from helicopters or advancing through fire, we train them to take extreme risks, and we're astonished when they go 130 on a motorcycle and get killed". I have very little interest in driving over about 75, but then I also have very little interest in confronting dangerous people.

<comment><USER29> A decent chunk of my last few weeks on Parris Island was them telling us how much money they'd spent on us and not to [expletive] it up by killing ourselves doing something stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> OP here. I'm sensing some generalized anti-police sentiment. Many cities allow residents to "ride along" in a police car for a shift. (In the front!) It's not a bad thing to do.

<comment><USER30> Anti-police sentiment exists here because police abuse their power systematically, and notably so in places with strong tech communities like New York City and the Bay Area (specifically Oakland), residents of which are over-represented on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> ok I really am not getting this it says:

"the technical challenges were daunting because the raw information does not allow speed calculations,'' Maines said. "We came up with some neat tricks to overcome that, and it's great that the judges recognized our hard work.""

I am crazy to think that the raw data would be something like: account#, toll location, time And this would be the bare minimum. How would determining the length between tolls and using the times to determine the average speed required be "neat tricks"? Am I really off?

I am not saying it wasn't hard work, but please tell me the real technical challenges, that I really would love to hear.

<comment><USER32> Yea but you can't even begin to imagine how big the excel spreadsheet was.

<comment><USER31> that put a smile on my face, do i need to update my resume to be a database specialist?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It gives some hope that it's possible to police the police.

<comment><USER34> Except when that gets the policer threats from officers being policed (and their colleagues in the brotherhood):

[http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Florida-Highway-Patrol- Tr...](http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Florida-Highway-Patrol-Trooper-Who- Arrested-Speeding-Miami-Officer-Files-Lawsuit-184753781.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > The reporters found nearly 800 officers who reached speeds of 90-130 mph, > many of them while off duty.

Well, driving above the speed limit while on duty is required. Why would that be included in the statistic? And driving 90 is hardly out of the ordinary where I'm from. That being said, driving 120 or 130 while off duty is clearly a bad idea.

<comment><USER36> > Well, driving above the speed limit while on duty is required.

Admittedly, it's not really physically possible to catch up to someone traveling at 90 mph when you're limited to 65, however they have lights and sirens that, according to law, they are required to use while responding to an emergency or incident, which broadly covers speeding.

According to the original article, more than half of all incidents occurred outside of the officers jurisdictions. Miami-Dade limits officers to 20 mph above the speed limit at all times, even while enroute to an emergency (270 cops were found going over 90, 70 being the highest speed limit in Miami- Dade). FHP limits officers to 15 above the posted limit, but does allow excesses if the situation requires it, but only if the environment allows it and it is safe to do so, but earns the prize for the fastest speed of 129.8 mph.

[http://databases.sun- sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudCopSpee...](http://databases.sun- sentinel.com/news/broward/ftlaudCopSpeeds/ftlaudCopSpeeds_list.php)

<comment><USER23> You might be interested to learn that radio waves can travel well in excess in of 90mph. as can helicopters. In fact, many jurisdictions ban high-speed chases, specifically because they are more dangerous than they help.

<comment><USER36> I'm apparently missing something. How is speed of light and the maximum horizontal speed of a helicopter relevant to the capabilities a single cop traveling in a single highway capable vehicle in pursuit of another highway capable vehicle?

I think I'm perfectly aware of the existence of radio waves and the breakthrough in communications their discovery unlocked, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about two different objects traveling at two different speeds in the same direction being physically incapable of meeting at another point unless the faster object slows down or stops, or in this instance the slower object breaks the speed limit and speeds up.

<comment><USER37> I think OP was making the point that, instead of speeding, a police officer should radio other officers ahead of the speeder in an attempt to catch the perpetrator.

It's a bad point because police already do radio ahead while they're in pursuit. Also, some cities do not allow police to chase suspects but it all depends on the crime. For example, they may chase someone wanted for murder but not someone else who's wanted for a non-violent crime. The argument is that it's not worth putting the public at risk for some offenders but for others it's important to apprehend the suspected criminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> What makes me happy about this is that it's an example living in the information age. Every day people are gaining more and more tools that can be used to, in a way, force transparency. I think the situation from that standpoint will only get better as stories like this unfold. I really like this one because it's a demonstration that given the right tools, some folks can cut through and make their own transparency.

I'm not saying it's a panacea, but I do think that we live in pretty interesting times for this kind of thing.

Here's hoping it continues in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER39> And absolutely nothing will change.

Like Congress voting back insider-trading.

Zero penalty for speeding off-duty cops and they will still kill people and get away with it.

</comment><comment><USER40> Great use case for big data, and a great story about how "shadow data", the data that is avaialbe only through manipulation of data can be extracted.

</comment><comment><USER41> And people will use this as a reason to scream "OMG CORRUPT COPS ALL OF THEM ARE AWFUL!" Welcome to the history of law enforcement.

People are people. We all do stupid things, and pretending that cops are anything but people is idiotic. Yes, they should be held to a higher standard. No, that does not mean you should not expect them to fuck up; it means that they should be punished when they do, just like the rest of us.

I know people who scream corruption and all sorts of other stupidity every time some government agent does something that seems even remotely wrong. I also know people who will defend, against all logic, all actions of anyone carrying a badge. I fall somewhere in between; I know and have known a whole lot of government employees, and have even been processed by a few of them. Yep, it was my fault, and I can't bring myself to hold it against them.

The point is that most people who take the job of upholding the law do so. That the laws aren't perfect is not their fault. That there are people who take that job but still break the law means they're not perfect, and it means they're still subject to the same laws as the rest of us. That's not news; that's just reality.

The idea that cops should be perfect sure as hell didn't come from cops. At least, none that I know. Higher standard? Sure. Perfection? Try a mirror. No one can manage that, and if you want perfect people chasing you down the street, you're likely to get sued when they find out you're using Superman without express written permission.

</comment><comment><USER42> It's true - the majority of crime and unprovoked acts of violence in many regions are committed by law enforcement and the legal system as a whole.

The solution is to replace the current feudal legal system with a framework that seeks to reduce violence.

</comment><comment><USER43> well, am I the only one to find that a little bit strange? pardon me for the cross reference but it feels like this should be on /r/nottheonion</comment>


The Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch/ <comment><USER3> While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments.

Personally I don't know that there's _any_ watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatches. The smaller Apple Watch is 38mm, certainly not small but by no means an irrationally huge behemoth. (Even the larger is only 42mm, I believe.) When you consider the three lines, two sizes, and multiple bands, there's dozens of combinations available. You may personally not like the fashion sense, but other than the Moto 360 this is the first smartwatch that's had a fashion sense to criticize. (And guys, the Moto 360 is 46mm, so let's not pretend it's svelte, either.)

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a _lot_ more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. Yes, I'm sure every single component has an antecedent you can point to, just like the iPhone's interaction model. Except that nobody put it all together like that before the iPhone. And nobody put it all together like _this_ before the Apple Watch.

I'm not so glib as to say that catcalls when Apple introduces a new product are a sure sign of success (I remember the iPod Hifi, thanks). But again, it's hard not to see a few recurring patterns in the responses: oh, look, it doesn't do everything that it could (or that competitors already do!) and it's too expensive. If it sells well, it'll only because of the Apple faithful buying everything.

And, of course, if it sells well, than within a year all smartwatches will adapt its interaction model. Other manufacturers will come out with variants that Apple isn't making, and we can move onto the evergreen phase of dismissing Apple as a company that just copies everybody else.

<comment><USER4> _it 's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments_

You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was _technically_ correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes).

 _But what 's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else._

How so? Google put, it seems, enormous thought and effort into Android Wear. It is a whole interaction and ecosystem built specifically for smart watches. Because Tim Cook gives some trite speech about not using a smartphone OS on a watch (this was, it is worth noting, not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet")?

You've tried to cover every possible Apple defense, so you seem pretty committed, but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months. Announcing before availability, large and bulky, needs to be tethered to a device, _square_ , and so on...I have to imagine all of those once liabilities will suddenly turn into strengths.

I love my Apple products, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach.

<comment><USER3> Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. This informs a whole lot of things about the way the UX works. The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way.

Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. As a general rule, everything everyone ever gets enthusiastic about can be safely dismissed as having first appeared in a Nokia product that all 27 Finns who bought it are still fanatical about. Also, it was probably implemented in Lisp.

<comment><USER5> > Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you > shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead.

The fact that you believe what Apple says about Google rather than taking the two minutes to actually look at how Android Wear works and see that that statement is completely false shows that the distortion field is in full effect.

<comment><USER6> I mean, this is the same company that, during the keynote today, repeated the lie that they're the mob that brought us the computer mouse. People just accept Apple's misstatements and half-truths and outright lies as fact now.

<comment><USER7> Did they actually say that? What's the exact quote? I thought they said something about all their products using innovative interfaces, not that the innovations were theirs.

Still, when they were talking about the digital crown, they did make it sound like they were trying to claim they invented the optical rotary encoder.

<comment><USER8> "Macintosh introduced the mouse." from the official liveblog:

[http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept- event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4...](http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept- event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4-918e-5bba170f381c/)

<comment><USER7> "Introduced" is a subjective word. The Alto had a mouse, but I don't think it was used outside PARC. It doesn't seem too far from the truth to say that the Macintosh introduced the mouse to the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS. A sports watch without GPS, IMHO is a no go at $350. For <$300 I can get GPS, HR, ANT+, waterproof* and +20h battery life. e.g. Garmin Forerunner 910xt.

(I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance).

*Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. I put off buying a GPS watch because I wanted to see what Apple was going to offer. Answer: Nothing.

I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?

Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.

The only argument for this watch is that it might be helpful for those times when pulling out your phone is just too onerous. I regret that I do not have the type of lifestyle where that is a serious limitation.

<comment><USER11> Whether this will be useful all rests on the quality and differentiation of the haptic feedback.

For example, imagine walking down the street towards your destination and feeling the right side of the watch vibrate to signal that you should turn right.

If your watch can communicate contextual information related to your intention and local then it will be superior to (1) wearing a socially inappropriate device like the Google Glass, (2) being called out to by a device, (3) fumbling in your phone in order to then open the correct app.

Apps that correctly use haptic feedback should be able to silently and subtly give users superpowers without forcing them to clumsily interact with a product.

I actually wrote about the benefits of this back in 2012 [0], though I was talking about phones and notification fatigue back then (and not leveraging Future Interface style stuff.)

[0] [http://sebinsua.com/your-thigh-as-an-interface-from-your- pho...](http://sebinsua.com/your-thigh-as-an-interface-from-your-phone-to- your-mind)

<comment><USER12> The overriding feeling I had during this keynote is that every feature that I found cool in the watch I would much prefer on my phone.

Cool watch app? Wait, actually that would be cooler and more usable on a big screen...

Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.

<comment><USER13> > Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone > and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.

It's frequently lost upon this crowd (I'm guilty of this myself) that half of the population in the West frequently wears clothes which lack pockets.

<comment><USER14> Your statistic confused me until I realized you were [assumedly] referencing females who keep their phones in their purses/bags.

<comment><USER15> Please try to say women, not "females." I don't think you meant anything by it but when you always see that usage, (common in tech spaces) it starts to feel a little dehumanizing.

<comment><USER16> Oh lord, get over it. Female is degrading now?

<comment><USER17> Well, it does make you sound like a Ferengi.

<comment><USER16> What's a Ferengi?

Edit: Nevermind. I Googled it. Star Trek alien.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Maybe if we don't mention lefties, everyone will forget they exist"

Righty watches aren't a big deal for us to use because you only use the crown to set them, and you only set them twice a year. On the Apple Watch, you're going to use it all the time.

It's not even that I couldn't use my right hand, it's that I don't want a bulky $350 gadget permanently strapped to my left hand, which I frequently use for doing things. Great recipe for (best case) being irritating, or (worst case) getting smashed into stuff.

Maybe it can be rotated 180° to go on a right arm? It'd mean the button and crown positions are backward, but it'd be better than nothing. I see no mention of that option anywhere, so for now I assume you can't.

Either way, doesn't support the 4S, costs more than I'm willing to spend, and will hopefully get thinner in future releases. I'll jump on the smartwatch train eventually, but not with this one.

<comment><USER19> I don't see why the face wouldn't be reversible - it detaches completely from the strap, and it's not like the software UI is going to be upside down - <USER2> phone can already handle that. The only difference will be that the crown is below the button.

<comment><USER18> Agreed, it just seems like something that Apple ought to mention. Can't find it anywhere on their website. And orientation changing makes sense for a phone feature because people switch between portrait and landscape, while this is a permanent setting that 90% of people would never touch.

It'd be a giant oversight for Apple though, and I'd be surprised if nobody on their design team is left handed.

<comment><USER20> Yes, I would have also thought that since this was a presentation to the general consumer and not just a tech demo ala WWDC where these things don't matter yet, that they would have addressed this issue by showing a person taking the watch from one wrist and putting it on the other and thus showing the device can be turned around and used just like before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Who would have thunk that of all the end-of-2014 smartwatches, the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola?

Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.

<comment><USER22> You know, I was thinking the same thing. I think I prefer the roundness of the 360, than the rectangular Apple design. However, you won't catch me wearing either of them until you don't have to have a phone with you.

I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)...

<comment><USER23> > I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear > on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text > messaging, and glancing at emails)...

The problem's these require extensive radio interaction/SoC, without a phone support (which can stream the information via bluetooth LE) you have to carry that in the watch itself.

<comment><USER22> Yeup. So wake me when this becomes a reality: I'm sure somone's patenting building a cellular antenna into a watch band as I type this. Plus, I'm sure 6G networks will be faster and require even less power....

<comment><USER23> The antenna is not the problem, the radio chips (and power) are.

<comment><USER24> Specifically, you need enough power to regularly transmit an electromagnetic signal on the order of miles that scales with the inverse square law.

Considering that they can't even get the battery life up without that requirement, it might be a while unless we make significant scientific breakthroughs in battery or wireless technology.

<comment><USER25> _Considering that they can 't even get the battery life up without that requirement, it might be a while unless we make significant scientific breakthroughs in battery or wireless technology._

"Both the Samsung Gear S and the Gear Circle will be available in global markets in phases through Samsung's retail channels, e-commerce websites and via carriers beginning October."

<comment><USER24> Gear Circle requires a smartphone for connectivity. I'm interested to see what kind of battery life the Gear S is able to get with a 300mAh battery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit thinner (v2?), but the previewed watch faces look absolutely awful to me. You'd think that would be the easiest part of building a super computer that fit on your wrist.

<comment><USER27> > _and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to > smart watches._

I disagree with you on this. For me, this smartwatch, like all the other recent ones, is _everything but geeky_. They look like they're designed for everyone except the techies (they probably are). I for one would love a smartwatch that gives the vibe of advanced, "hackery" technology.

<comment><USER28> > is everything but geeky

I'm a nerd, and I'm sorry to be crude but NERD ALERT. A smart watch today starts at Geeky and works, laboring and awkwardly, towards generally acceptable.

If you think a smart watch by any manufacturer, at this early point, is everything but geeky you gotta get out of the office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My biggest take away is that Apple has failed to advance the state of the art in any meaningful way here. I guess hype is always hype, but people really expected that Apple would do something that would knock this out of the park - a week long battery life, a flexible watch face, or a bracelet style 360 degree screen or something else that would just reset the whole space. It didn't happen. This device may sell well (or not) but it's basically a peer to the current entrants in this space, not a generation ahead like many people expected.

<comment><USER30> It's exactly one generation ahead.

<comment><USER31> How so? Genuine answer.

I fail to see what this offers that the other products in this space doesn't have. At least hardware-wise.

<comment><USER32> A set of new UI primitives and the hardware to support them (crown thingy, tactile feedback chip).

<comment><USER33> I have doubts about the crown thingy -- turning a watch crown while the thing is on your wrist is quite uncomfortable. I understand it's a big crown, but still doesn't seem ergonomic to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is an intriguing situation because while the "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." comment will always haunt those that criticise Apple product launches this is the first one in years where the product looks more like it's actually the Nomad being mentioned, and the iPod has yet to arrive.

I'm going so far as to say that smartwatches and VR represent the desperate flailing of a tech industry that's run out of ideas that will connect with people. We had a good boom post iPhone, but this kind of thing just doesn't look like there's any point to it.

<comment><USER35> In my opinion you're utterly wrong about VR, it's going to be a transformative technology and will precipitate a massive push for high end real-time graphics. People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades.

As far as the watch goes, I think it will make money but less than the iPad. It's clearly pitched as a fashion accessory and will find a market. Just not a big enough one to satisfy analysts.

<comment><USER36> > People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring > that in spades.

It's far from clear that they're actually willing to do anything about it. Look at 3D TVs. No one wants to sit on their couch lazily watching whatever's on with special glasses.

If VR was a passive technology like HD -- by which I mean you buy a new TV and everything is better without any further action on your part -- I'd be more confident that you're correct. But it's not. I can't see headsets as a thing people are going to wear sitting on their sofa with the family. Game consoles seem like an obvious target with an audience that might be receptive, but otherwise, I just can't envision mass adoption.

<comment><USER35> I don't argue that it would be an easier sell if it wasn't so anti-social to use. But it certainly can't be compared to 3D TVs or movies for that matter, which are an awful hack.

This generation's VR is the real deal, and while the technology isn't quite there yet, it's within touching distance. People will be prepared to put up with the inconvenience because the experience will be significantly more compelling than anything else they've seen. It will be massive based on word of mouth alone.

<comment><USER36> I think that very much depends on perspective. The technology powering a current-gen headset might be brilliant, but the headset itself -- not the technology but the very idea that I need a headset is still very much an "awful hack". At least to me, and I suspect quite a few others. I could be wrong of course...just my predictions there, but that's my problem with the tech.

<comment><USER35> I guess what I'm saying is that if the experience is 10x more compelling (which is what I think it will be), then people will put up with it.

Putting on skis and getting to the top of a mountain is inconvienent but people still do it.

<comment><USER36> Some people ski, occasionally. I can totally see that future for VR as well, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. For gaming, it's at least potentially very compelling. I just don't see it as a technology people want for more general use. I don't think we'll be using it browsing Facebook or sitting in the park.

People don't wear skis around in their daily life. Skis are very much a special purpose item that most people use between never and about once a year, with never the runaway winner, if you consider the fraction of even relatively affluent people who don't ski at all.

<comment><USER35> I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous because it gives them a unique experience. Obviously the 'overhead' of putting on a VR headset is massively less than that of skiing.

If you think of VR as being a new screen technology, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you have. But true VR (where you have 'presence') goes far, far beyond that. I agree it's not going to be a general purpose platform like the smartphone, but I think it will still be high impact.

Do I think people will be browsing Facebook with VR? Probably not. The challenge for Facebook will be to create an environment based on their content that you would want to visit.

<comment><USER36> I didn't really intend that to be literal. I'm going with the "skiing as a metaphor" here. Yes, people will do something arduous and inconvenient for the experience, but they do it rarely. The inconvenience is tolerable when you do it every once in a while to get a unique experience. The same level of inconvenience is not at all tolerable as part of your day to day life.

If the argument is that VR will become "an experience", then I'm fine with that. But a capital-E-Experience is the opposite of everyday mass adoption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I spent about 20 minutes reading through some of the now 650+ comments, and I'm a bit surprised how common the arguments are on both sides. It feels like the entire tech community has the same basic argument every time a new 1.0 apple product is released:

Those who don't like the product:

\- it is feature incomplete

\- the hype doesn't match the actual product

\- it doesn't actually look that great

\- there are other, better products already on the market

\- it is overpriced

\- one or two interesting feature doesn't equate to "innovation"

And those who like the product (or love Apple) tend to have counter-points for each argument.

I'm curious if anyone has compiled a list of day zero critiques over the years for Apple successes (Mac, iPod, iPhone) or failures (Mac toaster, hifi, etc.)? It would be fun (and maybe a bit informative) for the community to review.

Edit: fixed spacing and wording.

<comment><USER38> I think you are spot on with this comment. The reaction to this watch is not substantially different from every other reaction to a major Apple product (or OS version or whatever else they announce).

It can be entertaining to read (got me interested in the Garmin Forerunner that was mentioned) but it's just people at a bar chatting about the topic of the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Two small things:

* The product pages for the individual Watch lines, especially [http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-sport/](http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-sport/) , are the first time I can recall Apple using sex or (literal) sexiness in its advertising. (We'll pass over the "Rip. Mix. Burn." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo) cringefest ...)

* I await Gruber's reaction with considerable interest...

<comment><USER40> Regarding your first point, see:

[http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/advertising-and- fut...](http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/advertising-and-future-of- apple.html)

<comment><USER41> Don't necessarily agree with everything in that article but it's remarkably prescient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> To those who are concerned about mainstream adoption of a watch like this, I remind you of the Pebble Kickstarter which was one of the most successful in Kickstarter history. And all those contributors had no guarantee that the Pebble would see the light of day. There is serious demand for a watch that does even what the Pebble originally promised, which is still far far less than what the Apple Watch has now proposed to do.

I have been a Pebble watch owner for over a year, after having given up wearing watches around the time I owned my first cellphone. I have come to feel the same NEED of having my Pebble on as I, and everybody else, has with their phone in their pocket. All of the quirks of the Pebble and everything that I have come to realize is missing with the Pebble, is addressed elegantly with the Apple Watch. 'Canned' and voice responses to messages... Huge. A non- obvious alternative to the classic vibration (which is obvious to people nearby when using the Pebble) in the 'tap' technology... also clever and smart.

<comment><USER43> Just fyi (happy Pebble owner since the Kickstarter), Pebble Glance now gives you the ability for canned responses to texts straight from the watch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The main innovation I like is NFC in the Watch. This makes so much sense. What is the big advantage of pulling a phone from your bag instead of a wallet? Paying with a wrist, opening doors with your wrist, entering the metro with your wrist. Can't wait for the next Wear releases from Samsung to have it integrated :)

<comment><USER45> Sony Smartwatch 3 has NFC (and GPS). Too bad it's rather ugly. AFAIK, it only currently uses NFC for pairing to a phone, but the hardware is there and Android Wear will hopefully soon include complete support for it, like they recently did with watch GPS support.

<comment><USER44> Unfortunately it is only a passive tag for pairing. You can't to do anything else with it, so it cannot read other tags itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting.

Here is what is missing for me:

1\. Sweat sensor.

2\. Insulin sensor.

3\. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently _automatically_ detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should __know __that! My iPhone should auto update a fitness tracking app. If I start biking my normal "track" here in Toronto, it should automatically know that! So underwhelmed here.

4\. No mention of emergency assistance "stuff", (like detection of heart attacks, or spiking insulin levels).

5\. Some really stupid / weird features, although I do kinda like the shared heartbeat one. Would be fun on exercises / first date makeouts :)

<comment><USER47> >> For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that!

Exactly how do you propose this would work?

You are disappointed by diabetic specific monitors, the lack of an app that I'm sure someone will create someday, and something that physics will likely never be able to solve. I think it's safe to say that your expectations started in the realm of fantasy. Innovation can't ignore reality.

<comment><USER46> There are already devices that have proved this concept in production (and waiting FDA approval) or on the market.

<comment><USER47> Could you provide a link? I feel I'd have heard if any physics defying devices exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Here are my first thoughts (I kind of won't be doing device specific nitpicking as this is the first iteration. We are sure the concept will evolve with time):

Good things:

1.) The Tap-talk feature is an absolute genius for me. This, exactly this, is the perfect non-intrusive yet hyper connected way to intimately stay in touch with someone. Just tap on their wrist, so simple. Make a little scribble to show emotion, so beautiful.

2.) The digital crown seems very interesting. I know the concerns on this thread, but if you see the demo again, the nob is bigger and is fluid enough to rotate by rolling just one finger on it. We hate crowns on our watches not because we have to rotate them, but because they are hard to rotate. This one might be different.

3.) The built. It starts at $349, while Android Wear is at $250-300 range. But then this is sapphire glass with at least steel body. And their is mention of actually how a watch is accurate with time, something 3 other companies didn't do.

4.) Multiple sizes is a good thing. Small people, petite ladies don't like to wear big sizes. I like how adaptive this watch is with the sizes, materials, straps.

Now on to the awkward parts:

1.) They gave developers at least 4-5 months time to implement the tap-talk on Android Wear. By the time this watch actually comes to stores, it would be beaten down concept.

2.) They gave Android Wear manufacturers all the time to step up their game.

3.) The killer app, even in on-stage demos, seems to be the maps app. The Apple maps, unfortunately. That makes it profoundly useless wrist weight for anybody living outside of handful countries it actually works in. That gives Android Wear a terrible advantage.

4.) No GPS on watch. So basically I have to carry my phone in pocket during runs. There is already GPS apps which do that. So that makes this watch essentially a display.

5.) No word on battery.

6.) Apple launched a watch today. A week earlier Moto launched a better looking watch. This is a sentence I never thought I'd say.

Would I have bought it today if Apple launched it? Yes.

Will I now that Apple has given me months to think it over? No.

<comment><USER49> I'm surprised that the Apple Watch looks so much like a watch. I was keen to see how they might break that concept apart and create something really novel.

<comment><USER50> I'm sorry? I don't really want to sound like I'm bashing Apple, but I'd never see something round, rectangular and bulky and think "watch" up until the recent advent of smartwatches. Apple Watch is as un-watchy as any of the competing smartwatches, in my opinion.

<comment><USER51> Here you go... Big, rectangular bulky watch. They cost 2.5 _million_ dollars each, but have no Bluetooth... _sigh_

[http://www.independentjewellers.com/blog/2012/04/the-most- co...](http://www.independentjewellers.com/blog/2012/04/the-most-complicated- watch-in-the-world/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Even though I am an Android developer, I played with the thought of buying the iPhone 6 (the big one) and an Apple Watch, because Swift is kind of a reset for developers and I am very happy with my MacBook.

But now that I've seen the keynote, I've got some issues with the watch:

First of all, I feel it's too expensive, because those smartwatches are basically obsolete after a year. (at least to me)

It would have been good if Apple would allow those watches to be sent in and upgraded, especially for the version that uses a gold casing, which I suspect will be extremely expensive. (probably > $1000)

The design of the watch is not bad, but not good either. I would have no problem wearing it, but I don't like that rectangle look. (the Moto 360 looks better to me)

But on the other hand I like the navigation wheel a lot. I'm pretty sure that this alone will allow for more complex apps than what we see on Android Wear at the moment.

The new types of messages that Apple presented isn't interesting to me, but I can see the younger audience using it a lot.

<comment><USER53> >First of all, I feel it's too expensive, because those smart watches are basically obsolete after a year.

I felt the same way when introduced rMBP but the prices are going down. Hopefully, they will go down in the next couple years. Personally $200 would be perfect but $350 is too much especially when I can get a new iphone for less (with a subsidy from my carrier).

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I haven't worn a watch in at least 15 years. A good chunk of my friends and colleagues as well.

I'm sure there are interesting use cases, but my summary view is this seems like a current-generation iPod with a wristband.

No prediction of how successful it will be, but I kind of think this will be more niche than mainstream.

<comment><USER55> Same; for me it was mostly a practical reason though, my wrists started to hurt from computer work and the strap (metal one) was annoying against the edge of my laptop, so I had it off most of the time. Of course, if this thing proves to have added value (and just notifications isn't added value for me, I don't get them that often and if I do they're not important enough to warrant having to check them at all times), I'd consider going back to watches - pulling out your phone to check the time isn't the most convenient of actions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> i can't imagine this selling well, but i also couldn't imagine the ipad selling well and history showed i don't know what i'm talking about, so it'll probably be a huge hit.

<comment><USER57> I'm with you--I thought the iPad was dumb and happily ate crow after using one. Looking at the Apple Watch today I'm scratching my head wondering what's the point and who really wants to be even more distracted by their devices.

<comment><USER58> I had the same reaction to the iPad as you, and now am a very happy owner. Because of this, I now withhold my opinions until I can try out products in person, although I personally could never see myself owning a smart watch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The watch looks very nice indeed but _starting at_ $350 is ominously steep especially since it requires an iPhone

<comment><USER60> Watches aren't subsidized and there are thousands of dumb watches that people pay well over $350 for already.

<comment><USER61> Those "dumb" watches will still work in 5 years. Hell, they will still be nice in 100 years. Smart watches won't hold up for 5 years.

<comment><USER62> Most "dumb" watches that cost over $350 will retain the majority of their value well past those 5 years, too. Apple's first generation watch will be ~$50 in 5 years.

<comment><USER63> Android gear can't sell for $50 now.

<comment><USER64> The first Samsung Gear watch was only announced a year ago (Sep. 2013), and you can get it for <$150 new. Pretty sure it will be well under $50 for that model in 4 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> It may be that Google did a pretty good job of preemptively responding to the Apple Watch, but I don't find this that much more interesting than the already not very interesting Android Wear devices.

<comment><USER66> > preemptively responding to the Apple Watch

That's really interesting way to phrase it. if tables were turned would you say the same thing or would it be Google responding to apple or worst, Google copying apple?

<comment> nevi-me Assuming that Google hasn't spent "years" working on the Android Wear platform compared to Apple's "years", does it mean that based on what we've seen tonight vs. Wear, that Google has done better? I'm certainly of that opinion.

There were a lot of speculators who should be humbled by putting the "iWatch" on a pedestal before it was even released. I personally don't like the way it looks, though Apple considered something interesting, that not everyone's wrist is huge, and made 2 versions (Android Wear OEMs can of course counter this by flooding the market with 'choice')

<comment><USER66> I totally agree with you and think that google's wear is a better offering.

My original reply was referring to the fact that even though Google came to market with its wear device first (years ago with glass and months ago with on the watch) it's still being called a response to apple's non existent (at the time) product.

however if tables were turned and google were to release its first wear product months from now, after apple, NO ONE would call apple's watch a preemptive response to Google's wear. It would either be reported as Google copying apple or best case scenario Google's response to apple's innovation.

eg. No one called the original iPhone a preemptive strike on Android.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone.

Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it.

Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.

<comment> k-mcgrady Sure it might not be for serious runners but about half the people I see running have a phone strapped to their arm. If they also have the watch it means they can see the display while running and get more accurate data. For those people it's not a big deal. If you're the sort of person who buys a GPS watch of course it won't be for you. When has Apple ever catered to niche markets?

<comment><USER67> Yeah, that's exactly my point. I used my iPhone 3G for 2 years of running when I first started. Why would I blow $350 on an Apple Watch to get marginal gains that a $150 GPS watch can also give AND let me ditch carrying the phone. Which, arm strap or no, is bulky and at risk of destruction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> It's a little thick isn't it? But it's got a design that I can see evolving over time. Not bad for a square-ish watch.

Except I don't see any features that I need to plop over $350 for. In terms of health-related metrics the Basis watch is more feature-complete, and over half the price [http://www.mybasis.com/](http://www.mybasis.com/)

In terms of personal assistant features, Google Now takes the lead along with any smart-watch that takes advantage of it and Android-wear.

When the iPhone released, I believe the market was primed for a next- generation smartphone. I don't think this is true for wearables now. The Apple Watch will have a much touger climb than the iPhone ever did.

<comment><USER69> I think the value proposition for the watch will build as the sum of many parts: style + health sensor + payment token + presence token + wrist comms + apps(?).

Think of it as sort of a persistent "me key" in a smart-connected world. But that world is still in its infancy, so the watch doesn't seem very valuable yet.

I think it's similar to the iPad in that there is not really a built-in value proposition. The iPad's value is 100% in its apps...but when it launched, there were not a ton of iPad apps.

In contrast, the iPhone was bringing a clear value prop from day one: phone calls, email, and iPod. But even then the real value prop took a long time to develop. Remember the keynote, when Jobs said "a phone... an iPod... an Internet communicator"? The first two got huge applause, the last one not so much. That term clearly confused a lot of people.

But if you look at how people use their smartphones now, it is by far the biggest portion of the value of an iPhone. Both phone and iPod functionality is being eaten by Internet services (VoIP and Spotify/Pandora).

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I started wearing watches on a regular basis about a year ago and it has become an addictive new hobby, I'm up to 4 now and feel naked without one.

The primary use-case for a wristwatch - being able to glance at your wrist to tell the time - is actually very underrated in it's usefulness. We forget that watches started out as a pocket device until the military started strapping them onto the wrist for practical purposes.

When the cellphone came around we abandoned 100+ years of natural design evolution in favor of the more powerful new technology, but when that tech starts to fit comfortably in the same place that was so natural for the last century it will be a sea-change in the way we look at wireless tech...

</comment><comment><USER71> For me it's now official: Apple has ceded its position as an industry leader/innovator, and become a follower.

This is a really, really lame product.

<comment><USER72> "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

[http://beta.slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple- releas...](http://beta.slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases- ipod)

<comment><USER39> I think the analogy probably doesn't stand up: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8293961](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8293961) A better analogy may be what things would have been like if Apple had kept slogging it out in the handheld-computer market between '98 and '07.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Yes, you can use Apple Pay with the Apple Watch. Great addition, no more digging in my pocket for my iPhone Plus (if I can actually get it out of my pocket).

<comment><USER74> This is very usefull for those people that keep our phones in bags rather than pockets.

The more I think about it it more I think this watch isn't aimed at me...

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I wear a watch, but I think about it as jewelry, and incidentally as a time piece. And until there is a killer app for a watch, I will continue to do so.

Originally, I posed myself the question _if_ I would wear a smartwatch if there is no such thing as a killer app. The answer is yes, but _when_ is a better question. And the partial answer isn't about it being a smartwatch or dumbwatch, but about being an uglywatch or not.

I think this watch fails the uglywatch criteria. Which is an odd thought to combine with Apple.

<comment><USER76> This Apple watch is clearly not intended for people like you and me. You won't see James Bond wearing an Apple Watch and you won't see NASA strapping them around the sleeves of space suits like an Omega Speedmaster. This is another piece of electronics that will look as dated as a CueCat or dot-matrix printer fifteen years from now. A classic timepiece, on the other hand, will retain or gain value over time. I bought my Rolex Submariner for about $6000 in 2009. Just five years later, a new Sub costs close to $9000. The value of used Rolexes is even higher. I wouldn't be surprised if my watch has doubled in value.

The Apple Watch has its place: it's an alternative to a Suunto or Garmin training watch, or an everyday watch for people who wouldn't spend more than $500 on a timepiece. It's a fashion item but it's not jewelry. Like the original iPhone, its scarcity may create an initial aura of exclusivity but things will die down once you see a 14 year-old on the bus wearing one.

<comment><USER77> Rolex's are the worst investments in watch collecting. Rolex is highly susceptible to overshadowing, so even though a new one is more expensive than when you bought it, it doesn't mean your watch is worth that. It's worth even less if you didn't service it in 2013 and didn't keep the paperwork (Rolex's must be serviced every 3-4 years to maintain value).

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't find someone dumb enough to unload it on for more than you paid it, but a collector isn't going to give you that value for it.

The Rolex Daytona is the exception to this rule though, but Submariners are mass-produced and common for luxury watches.

Source: I collect watches.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> My Two Cents : I love watches, but a smart watch is just not for me. I prefer the craftsmanship it takes to create a watch that is delicately engineered to give you the exact time and makes sure the timekeeping is always accurate.

This is what a watch is supposed to do, keep time.

I feel smart watches are somewhat a novelty _at the moment_. There is simply too much functionality involved in smart watches, although they say its been dumbed own. When I look at my wrist, I want a quick glance of the time and a small moment to appreciate what is sitting on my wrist.

The idea around of smart watches brings so many possibilities.But I don't feel they are solving actual problems.

Design - Motorola is a company that is so underrated in the industry, the [0] Moto 360 was something I expected apple to release.Its actually a nice looking smart watch which seems to complement your lifestyle. Trust LG to follow suit. Square dials are just unpleasant to look at, but that's just my personal taste.

Battery life is another no go for smart watches right now - What if I'm on getaway hike for the weekend where I need to check the time and a watch compass regularly? I can get a Casio G Shock for hiking trip that is solar powered for half the price.

Its still early days to judge from afar. A couple of years, a couple of generations, and the prices falls down as always then maybe I'll check it out.

[0] [https://moto360.motorola.com/](https://moto360.motorola.com/)

<comment><USER79> I'm with you. I love my iPhone, but it will be a cold day in hell before my wrist sports one of these.

That said, I'm certainly interested to see where it will go - especially, as someone else said - once watchmakers start dealing in tech rather than tech- makers dealing in watches.

<comment><USER78> _once watchmakers start dealing in tech rather than tech-makers dealing in watches._

This couldn't have been said any better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> As the first step in watch market, Apple is in the right direction. Is this watch the ideal one we expect? Maybe not. Unlike others, they have found a path in design, but the logistics weighs more currently. So they are not able to go far at this moment. And the segment has attracted more and more competitors. It is not difficult to see they are struggling to balance the time to enter and their ability to offer an ideal product now. It's just the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER81> really hate the curved look, bringing back memories of the 3GS. I thought we moved on to sharp corners.

<comment><USER82> I'm so glad I'm not the only one on this. Really dislike the curved / beveled designs.

<comment><USER81> The iPhone 6 is meh but I really dislike the look of the watch.

<comment><USER83> It looks like a Samsung doesn't it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> The iPhone only seems affordable because it is tied to a 2-year contract. Otherwise it would be $800 and Apple wouldn't sell anywhere near as many as they do.

At $350, I don't see how Apple Watch is going to crack the volume markets. Think 15yo girls.

<comment><USER85> I am pretty sure that many contracts will throw in a watch for a few $/month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's really a deal breaker that the watch needs a phone to be tethered. If I'm going to look at a map, I'm just going to use the phone that's in my pocket. Similarly, I don't really need a buzz notification into my wrist to know text messages are coming in.

Not to mention, even though it's an Apple design, it still looks like a nerd- toy.

</comment><comment><USER86> It seems that the Apple Watch needs an iPhone nearby to do anything useful. This is extremely disappointing and a complete failure from the get-go. Essentially, Apple Watch just becomes a tool for those too lazy to take their iPhone out of their pocket. It's absolutely useless for exercising or other activities where one wouldn't typically carry a phone. That was supposed to be one of the main selling points and one of the main target audiences. As a runner myself, I can't see wasting any money on this unless it gets its own Wifi/LTE/Bluetooth/Storage capabilities and I can leave my phone behind. It seems Apple missed this quintessential requirement.

</comment><comment><USER87> It is cheaper to tie iPad Mini to wrist than buy an iWatch :).

<comment><USER88> And that's basically the same thing, too! /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Also: why the hell do I need to see what the moon's gonna look like 6 days from now?

<comment><USER57> Very useful feature for werewolves. This watch will be a hit in the Twilight universe.

<comment><USER39> It's essential information when I'm smuggling rum, or planning my escape from lunatic asylums.

<comment><USER83> Or for knowing when an apocalypse will occur. If the moon isn't going to look normal in 6 days, then I'll know that I need to hide and launch my rocket- ship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> It's surprisingly unattractive, but I think people here may be underestimating the quality of the interaction design. Of course it's impossible to know without trying one, but they've clearly put some thought into it. The video is worth watching: [http://www.apple.com/watch/films/#film- design](http://www.apple.com/watch/films/#film-design)

</comment><comment><USER83> I notice in all of the pictures and videos that the "crown" (nub on the side) is a render....? Kind of like all of Behringer's new product announcements: you see them on their website and they may or may not ever actually exist or get released. Does this mean they haven't finished it, or have rushed to get to appear to be in the market before it is swallowed up by Android watches?

<comment><USER91> Ever since the days of the original Firewire-only iPod, they've done 3D renders for extreme closeups like that. They are usually very accurate but still, it seems like it would be just a bit more honest to use a photo.

<comment><USER83> I didn't know that - thanks. I suppose it would be difficult to show that rotating nub without animation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Tim Cook tried to make the Apple Watch his iPhone moment but it came across as off - the Watch really is nothing as revolutionary in any way shape or form as the iPhone was.

It is thick. They had to resort to gimmicks - communicating heart rates, drawing fish, three dots to ask for lunch(!) - to make it sound useful. The price is off by at least $100. They specifically danced around mentioning battery life - with these many features it might not actually be all that better than the competition - an area where Apple habitually shines.

The UI also looked complicated to me - two ways to control it - touch and the unimaginatively named crown thing. Which is again very un-Apple. (When the watch is on your wrist I kept thinking how easily am I going to find the crown. For a normal watch that thing is very rarely used and that too when it is not on the wrist.)

Not that I think SmartWatches are here to stay as a mainstream product but the little hope we had that Apple will knock it out the park with some must have feature - that hasn't panned out with the iWatch for sure.

<comment><USER93> > the Watch really is nothing as revolutionary in any way shape or form as the > iPhone was.

The iPod brought portable digital music collections to the masses.

The iPhone revolutionalized personal computing.

The Watch has exchangeable wrist straps.

<comment><USER94> The Watch is Siri, out of your pocket. It's [http://www.dailymobile.net/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/Michae...](http://www.dailymobile.net/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/Michael-Knight.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Interesting, a payments system that works only if you have the latest iPhone, and a watch that only works if you have (possibly latest) iPhone. I love the display, and I think they have some great ideas here but I was hoping more for the 'ipod' replacement that would work with any iOS 8 device (like iPads too) instead of a remote for your phone.

<comment><USER96> Apple Watch works with 5, 5c, and 5s. And of course 6 and 6+

<comment><USER97> And if you notice, NFC of course isn't in the 5, 5c, 5s. So it makes me wonder if Apply Pay will work with a watch paired to an iPhone 5 series device. That might be a little nudge to get the Apple watch.

<comment><USER96> Oh, that's a good point. You're probably right, can't use Apple Pay with a watch paired with 5/5c/5s. I noted that the credit card information is available via passbook, but the 5's don't have the related hardware to support Pay, right? I mean the watch has the NFC, but the ability to generate the one- time numbers probably has to come from the phone?

<comment><USER95> It all seems a bit tangled together doesn't it? I get that when it makes sense but not when it crimps the addressable market fairly severely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Main drawback is you need an iPhone in order to have one. Couldn't there be a version that didn't?

<comment><USER55> I was hoping for an iPod Nano evolution myself, i.e. a standalone device that gets extras like GPS and connectivity when near your iphone, but alas.

Actually, was there anything on the ipod product line?

<comment><USER98> Nope, no announcements at least

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> It's amazing, the variety of attitudes and opinions on this thread. People don't spend this much energy arguing the fine points of war and yet, it really is just a watch.

The promotion is genius. Not sure about the watch, but if the chatter is any sign, it's already a success.

</comment><comment><USER100> My take away from the page is that it is entirely focused on cosmetics and construction. It seems loud and clear they are positioning this as a piece of designer apparel... I think Apple understands the most important thing most people in the market for a watch are interested in; How desirable it is to others. The whole page just talks about how hawt it is.

As others have mentioned, I believe Google has put massive thought into smart- watch interaction and how it integrates within your life as a utility. I'm not saying Apple hasn't. But I am saying Apple's watch sales are going to be crazy nuts. People have room for one watch as a fashion statement. If it's not going to be an Armani who do you think they'll go with?

</comment><comment><USER101> The one thing I like about my current watch is that is is solar charged. I haven't had any issues with replacing batteries for nearly 7 years. I'm not sure if I'm ready to charge yet another device on a regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER102> Two words: Universal Identity. That's the killer use-case that everyone is missing. The Apple Watch has an NFC-chip, internet connection, and an API-- this is going to happen. (They've already announced a partnership with W Hotels for the Watch to replace keycards in rooms.)

I think this would be super-convenient in the short-term but seems very worrisome in the long-term. My watch/phone/drivers-license is NOT me, and the more we rely on a single-point for authentication, the greater the potential for abuse and theft. More solutions need to be created.

</comment><comment><USER103> But we already know the time, it's on our phones? I don't get why anyone would buy this watch apart from trendy reasons.

I bet sales will be low. Body monitoring sensors are better off hidden I rekon, then you can wear any watch, or no watch, and your phone does all the interfacing with the hidden sensors. All this should be open technology too, compatible with any phone rather than tied down to one system. It's your body after all, our data's fate shouldn't be a corporation's monopoly money.

</comment><comment><USER104> At first I was thinking I had to have one of these. Then I read feature page where it subtly tells you that most of the functionality is based on being tethered to an iphone. What a pity.

</comment><comment><USER105> Glad they finally got rid of that hideous header on the homepage

</comment><comment><USER106> I run and occasionally do sprint tris. I carry a phone for both riding and running as I use Strava to track and compete with others. The thing I'm excited about is that this watch has a HR monitor, which is what I would need as you train based on intensity.

Not to mention when you're stranded 50 miles due to a flat tire, you'll need that phone to call for a pickup.

Others have mentioned listening to music,..etc. (I don't)

Look - you're going to carry a phone everywhere you go on land.

</comment><comment><USER107> Any official site for WatchKit? I can't seem to find any.

<comment> k-mcgrady I'm assuming it's part of the iOS SDK like GameKit, MapKit etc. So developer.apple.com/ios

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> This is just the first release of another killer product from Apple. To compare, the first iPhone did not have some basic features found in many cell phones, including stereo Bluetooth support and 3G compatibility.

I really believe that Apple will earn a ton of money, like in the first years of iPod or iPhone era.

And the watches market size, bigger than cell phones, computers and portable music. It's a pity to do not have this company listed here, on stock market of Brazil.

<comment><USER109> Seriously?

A killer product from apple innovates on battery life, form factor, materials, and especially software. At least some or all of those come into play to make for a superior product.

This is debatably better than the Moto 360.

Oh, and it's VAPORWARE, not being released until next year after Christmas.

I agree with others. This is a sign that Apple is no longer a leader in innovation. The glow of Jobs is fading from the company, despite how much I hate his beatification.

<comment><USER110> wait, you define vaporware as something that will be released within the next 6 months?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> Snapchat seems like the best suited form of communication for a device like this. I wonder why Apple didn't fit a camera into that huge black bevel..

<comment><USER85> Either Apple has left that for v2 just as with the original iPad, or people do actually find all these semi-hidden cameras creepy. I know I do (not a fan of Glass, either).

<comment><USER112> True that. I find them creepy as fuck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> Are those actual photos on the home page or computer renderings?

Because I hate how that thing looks - it looks sort of like a cartoon, like something from WALL-E.

<comment><USER96> I agree on the looks in isolation, but the pictures of people wearing the watch makes them not look so bad IMO. I was surprised at the functionality, though, especially Apple Pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> I was rather impressed but at 350USD and most likely 350e in Europe it's an expensive purchase. Still no word on battery life either.

<comment><USER115> In the keynote they made mention that it's easy to charge each night, which probably means a day or two.

That's better than the few hours some people are getting with the Moto 360, but it's not great. Let's hope it's at least one day consistently.

I'm interested to see the reviews. I wonder if they've reached too far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Curious to see how much the solid gold model costs.

</comment><comment><USER117> Miniaturization has come a long way, but there's no way this costs just $350 to make. Has Apple's strategy changed? They've always sold hardware at a healthy margin and made trivial amounts off software and music.

There are some really nice features here, I would probably buy one if I didn't prefer android so much. But is it so nice that it will drive iPhone sales?

<comment><USER22> There's gotta be some expensive parts in there, like that sapphire screen.

<comment><USER118> Sapphire screens that size are commonplace in real watches. I'm guessing that only added a few dollars to the BOM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> The only reason I want this watch is the exact features they were demo'ing:

Quickly respond to texts without having to pull out and unlock my phone

See who's calling me

Using the map to track where I am in a route

It seems like they nailed the low-hanging fruit and designed a pretty nice looking watch. Apple watch and the moto 360 both deserve credit for making smartwatches that don't look like total nerd gadgets

</comment><comment><USER120> Samsung's watch also needed a phone to work, and was just slightly clunkier. Why does Apple get such adulation in comparison?

</comment><comment><USER121> My biggest disappointment, they announced a product they cannot ship. I remember the good old days, ITS AVAILABLE TODAY. Now Apple is nothing than just what they used to lampoon, a creator of announcements; not products.

Perhaps we can hope they use the time to take the obvious feedback flowing in and make it right by launch

<comment><USER122> This stymies people considering buying competitor watches for this Christmas season, which is the big reason to pre-announce.

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> For many watches are used as a signaling device. That is, an expensive watch indicates to people that you have money. I assume these people aren't going to downgrade to an apple watch. I don't know what percentage of watch owners this is or whether it could affect uptake, but it could be factor.

<comment><USER124> While this might be true on one level, once you get into the realm of $350+ watches it can be very hard (if not impossible) for the casual and uninformed observer to guess whether a watch cost $500 or $5,000.

$350 is already more than most people spend on any watch, and that's only the entry-level price -- I imagine some of the more premium versions of the watch are going to be $500+, though that's just speculation. That's quite expensive for a watch for the vast majority of people I think.

<comment><USER125> I'm fairly sure chronometers start at >1000$ dollars and truly expensive watches use either expensive metals or gems to signal their value. Also there are no Rolex, Patek Phillipe etc. that have that price. Quartz watches are uninteresting as a status symbol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER126> I haven't bought into Apple stuff too much, just an iPad and an Air. No iPhone, I have Android instead and my desktop is Linux.

Question: Is the phone a mere accessory to the iPhone, or can it stand alone or with any phone (inc' Android and Windows Phone)?

<comment><USER127> iPhone only

<comment><USER126> Alas, and it looks really gorgeous too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> The linked to page made me wonder whether Apple had released a watch that was literally just a watch, just a fancy time-keeping device. Its not until you go one level up and go to features that it shows what the watch can actually do.

</comment><comment><USER129> I can't help but think that there really is a hard limit on the number of powered electronics that a person is willing to routinely carry on their person, and that number is one. Am I alone in feeling this way?

</comment><comment><USER130> Beautiful page, but kinda worthless IMHO.

When I look at it, I'm wondering: what's the UI like for a computer that isn't much bigger than my finger? (And if it's any good, why isn't it front & center?)

</comment><comment><USER131> I want a smart clock that looks like a clock not like a small wrist calculator.

Is that so hard?

</comment><comment><USER132> I'm surprised they haven't done a chunky smartwatch. That would provide plenty of battery life, and more room for electronics, while at the same time fill a bigger unmet niche.

<comment><USER83> Which niche would that be? People with bionic arms? Or weight-lifters? :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> As someone with 5 watches, I can't wait for this to release.

<comment><USER83> Do you have that many arms too?

<comment><USER112> Are you saying you don't wish you had 5 arms? You must be a fool.

But the answer to your question is, I was gifted 4 of them once people saw that I wear a watch. Watches work like that.

<comment><USER83> I would be happier with 4 arms, as a fifth arm would make balancing awkward.

Let's hope that if you get a "smartwatch", people will start buying you plenty of them!

<comment><USER112> I am not getting a "smart watch". Its called Apple Watch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Does anyone else really like the subtle ways to share sketches / heartbeats? It kind of makes it more personal than just a Google Now / cards interface.

Nice touch (literally).

</comment><comment><USER57> I worry this will be a massive target for theft. If someone sees you wearing an Apple Watch they know you have at least a $350 watch and $400+ phone on your person.

<comment><USER55> Not really a valid argument; a lot of people have their phone out at all times (or even just to check the time), which isn't even attached to their wrists like this one is. Second, at $350, the resale value on the black market is what, $50? $100 if you're lucky? Not sure if a robbery is worth that.

Besides, how do people with expensive watches (Rolexes and whatnot) manage?

<comment><USER133> I think tdicola's point is that, unlike any other watch, having an iWatch in your wrist _immediately_ signals you also have an iPhone 5 or higher tucked somewhere in that moment --since the watch, stupidly, only works tethered to an iPhone apparently.

As it happens, this kind of wealth signaling is a legitimate personal safety risk in many countries today, esp lower- to middle-income ones. In those countries, very few people can afford to wear expensive watches; and when they do, they just don't wear them around everyday in every public setting --more like for special occasions, private parties, meetings, etc. Note the risk is not just 'merely' mugging: it can also be kidnapping (you or your loved ones), 'doxxing' you and your family and emptying your bank accounts and so forth, or even extreme forms of assault --beatings, rape or death. So it's kind of a big deal.

iPhones, on the other hand, can be carried and used discreetly at all times, in non-conspicuous cases and using hands-free earphones --that is, until now, if you happen to be wearing a beaming iWatch right on your wrist, thus defeating the whole point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER134> Pretty sure the title of this should just be "Apple Watch", which is the title in the browser. Apple considers their products proper nouns.

</comment><comment><USER135> So, it's basically a tiny external screen for your iPhone right? Snore. Wake me up when they put cellular capabilities in there.

<comment><USER83> Won't it feel like you're in Knight Rider if you're talking to your wrist all of the time?

"Hey Kit! Prepare to meet me round the back of the house!" "MICHAEL. MICHAEL."

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> The Apple watch looks hot, but will it use a different store than the iOS store? Where is the info on registering apps for it etc?

<comment><USER74> I expect there will be no stand alone apps, they will be extension to iPhone apps. Therefore you need an iPhone app with a watchKit module in it to use it on the phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER137> My perspective is that the majority of the market already owns a smartphone. Companies are trying to get new gadgets out there in peoples hands to increase sales and keep the corporate machine rolling. The problem is, people are happy with just their phones. I think wearables will have a very very slow uptake, especially since they require you to have a smartphone in your pocket.

Someone call me when they get holograms to mass market, then I'll be interested.

</comment><comment> T-zex Does it have an SDK for the third party apps?

<comment><USER138> Yes, it's called WatchKit. Supposedly you can create third-party apps, glances, and notifications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER139> serious question: Does this watch anything do what my phone in my pocket doesn't?

I can't see a benefit of using a smartwatch.

<comment><USER83> I think it complements your phone. So it is more convenient to glance at your wrist than rooting around in your pocket and getting your phone out, something some people find quite rude.

If the trends reversed and they shrunk phones (like they did in the 90s) and put a strap on them, then they could easily replace the watch. But then battery life would be abysmal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Why do I have to buy a watch for my fitness, I can arm-band my iphone and have all the details.

</comment><comment><USER141> This makes me want.... a regular watch with good battery life.

</comment><comment><USER142> There is even an 18 karat gold edition. Sapphire crystal, waterproof, imported leather from the Netherlands. It goes behind the technology, to also embrace some of the finer things that make a quality watch... Quality.

</comment><comment><USER143> Steve jobs would have kept the configurations to only one.

<comment><USER61> Steve Jobs is dead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER144> ths is using a system on a chip designed by Apple themselves - what the hell. they're going all in on chips. intel quo vadis?

</comment><comment><USER145> I would have been nice to have real photographs.

</comment><comment><USER146> Does anyone know what the lower button does?

<comment><USER111> They said it 'opens a view of friends that you can click on'. They only showed it briefly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER147> I just wanted to swim with it... :(

</comment><comment><USER89> I don't want my heart rate and other health data getting uploaded to Apple and anyone else. Big blocker for me.

</comment><comment><USER148> Was expecting something more than this from Apple - the vision seems to be the same as what google had for google wear. Hardware wise it is not much of an increment either (my opinion only of course). Then again, I didn't really get excited over the iPad either and that was a huge success.

Setting that expectation aside, I would be fine with something simpler if it:

\- it was classy looking: thin and round, steel and real/sapphire glass - ideally something that looks like one of those simple swiss clocks from the 1960s

\- had an e-ink screen

\- had a gps, which I can turn on and off

\- had bluetooth notifications in case my phone is near

\- had bluetooth audio support; and

\- had spotify support. And here I mean that I want to be able to play music which has been synced to my watch over bluetooth, a cable or while docked.

\- had heart-rate monitor would also be a plus of course.

\- has enough battery for at least about a week, unless I am using the gps (for 2-3 hours), in which case it is fine if I have to charge it afterwards.

Want to use it as a regular watch (with the occasional message/calendar notification and perhaps even daily weather updates), and as a music player and as a gps for when I am running/biking.

Pebble almost have it, but their watches are way too ugly (my view only of course), too large for my wrists (so says my partner at least) and they don't have the extras that would make me really want one. I guess Spotify would have to be a partner as well, but I have Spotify on my radio so I guess it is only a small step to something like this as well.

Should be possible with todays technology though I am not really into HW. In terms of processor-power it really only needs to keep track of time, draw the watch face every second, draw the notifications/menu/..., handle user input (could be buttons not capacitive) and play music (which probably is the most resource intensive thing, but an easy match for any modern SOC). So for processing, battery shouldn't be a problem. An e-ink screen is thin and does not require much power either. Bluetooth 4 LE chipsets are very power friendly I think, so I would imagine that should be fine as well. They are also fast enough (1 mbp/s) for syncing notifications and even for the occasional sound track sync (I don't mind waiting 5-10 minutes for an album). The gps doesn't really have to give me directions, only log my position and would be used only when I am running/biking, and as I said, should be possible to switch it completely off.

The battery could be in the (detachable) wristband - I think I have seen quite thin and flexible polymer batteries around on the internet (though I am not sure if they are thin/flexible enough). Could also have different looks on the wristbands so you get one leathery-looking (for normal usage) and one plastic looking (for sports) like apple did (liked that part though it is hardly innovative).

</comment><comment><USER149> meta : I'm glad the product pages dont involve using JS to fuck up scrolling,for once. This fad needs to go.

</comment><comment><USER150> Broken link

<comment><USER151> Just CDN issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER152> Does it come with a kill-switch ?

</comment><comment><USER4> As much ink was spilled about competitors' failures, it's interesting that this won't be available some until vague window next year, and needs to be tethered to an iPhone.

The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.

<comment><USER47> It will be the most used feature by young lovers everywhere...

<comment><USER153> > It will be the most used feature by _rich_ young lovers everywhere...

FIFY. At $349 a pop, I doubt you want to cruise in college with this on the wrist.

<comment><USER47> A $350 watch is a too expensive, but $325 beats headphones are chill? When I walk through the seedier parts of town where most of the rent is paid in food stamps and wishes, I still see beats headphones.

<comment><USER154> Beats headphones are really heavily counterfeited at a tenth the price or less. I expect a lot of the ones you saw were fake.

<comment><USER83> Do they also counterfeit the ridiculous bass response in them? Or do they put decent drivers in them, like Beyerdynamic DT 770s with Beats logos on them? That'd be funny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER155> I expect muggings for jewelery to be making a comeback.

<comment><USER156> This will probably use Activation Lock as well.

[http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/20/police-say- ios-7-a...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/20/police-say- ios-7-activation-lock-is-significantly-reducing-thefts-of-apple-products)

</comment></comment><comment><USER157> It would be nice if there was a watch which could do everything a smartphone can do. make calls, take photos and videos, instantly teach me how to fight like Jason Bourne on demand etc.

</comment><comment><USER158> The thought of the thing buzzing when one of serveral very talkative/verbose friends starts spamming me with SMSes drives me into a rage. And thats just thinking about it.

</comment><comment><USER109> To all of you criticizing the features, just remember:

It's vaporware.

<comment><USER159> Vaporware does not merely mean "announced but not released".

</comment></comment><comment><USER160> Yeah okay, blah blah. I was at IFA Berlin 2014 and asked the SONY lady: "Hey what's the killer feature of your watch?". She said "It shows the time and tracks your steps!".

IMHO Apple Watch did a great job. I couldn't find any smart watch that have navigation ( although with a paired smartphone ) and a possible ecosystem of apps that can use it. The whole IFA ... nobody could offer this.

Althought, Of course it might be better, but Apple did a good job agains other tech companies in this field. Period.

disclaimer: I'm not that big apple fan boy.

<comment><USER109> Moto 360 is supposed to do navigation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER161> I've taken a hard look at every single smartwatch that's come out to date and found them wanting. I couldn't at any point bring myself to wear a device that needs to be charged every night and isn't "always on" yet doesn't have all the features I wanted. Little by little they got closer, but nobody had nailed it until Apple did.

I think it'll initially be seen as a superficial luxury, much like a smartphone. Then without much effort and without anyone noticing it'll become a device that's at first convenient to have and then inconvenient not to have.

I'm definitely getting an Apple watch and it'll take some amazing competition to steer me in another direction. I guess this means I'll have to get a Mac some time too.

</comment><comment><USER162> I always measure the future success of a new Apple product by both the number and volume of negative comments related to. The greater the volume, the more likely it is to be successful. By all accounts, Apple Watch is going to be a smash hit.

<comment><USER163> How did that work out for Ping ?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1659306](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1659306)

<comment><USER162> Hardware

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> The Apple fans [1] impress me with their non-fanaticism on this one. If this is a general trend across religions, I like where we are heading. Props!

Apple watch certainly has qualities though. It's exciting to see how the market will develop now that all parties have opened their cards.

[1]: [http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2fxe2t/its_hideous/?s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2fxe2t/its_hideous/?sort=top)

<comment><USER164> "all parties"

Cue poor Microsoft sobbing in a corner

<comment><USER111> I don't think there are any rumors of Microsoft going into this market, is there? I don't know if they have anything to bring to the table.

<comment><USER83> Bring to the table? If they actually made the table computer (the ORIGINAL Microsoft Surface), that'd be great. A computer that doesn't get in the way.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Marketplace for Bootstrap and Foundation Themes and Templates - <AUTHOR> https://twittstrap.com

<comment><USER2> have a look at: [https://wrapbootstrap.com](https://wrapbootstrap.com)

may also chat with these guys [http://www.bootply.com/](http://www.bootply.com/) if you could partner.</comment>