I mean, it's a totally valid perspective, but holy edge-case
If I have a watch as a fashion accessory/jewelry, being small is no longer a design parameter, and in fact being larger might be seen as positive- like a large diamond ring.
Watches are not always worn just to tell time.
That's not to say Apple can't reverse that trend - they hold considerable sway in matters of fashion and design, but right now this is the dominant form for men's watches.
See also the complaints about it not looking expensive enough. It doesn't matter if it works, if its durable, or even if it actually is expensive, the only selection criteria was appearing expensive to others. That way, people you don't know or care about will be impressed by you. That guy I don't know who I passed in the hallway would be extremely intimidated if my watch band looked handmade, and thats very important to a certain caliber of people.
I too was stunned, but for the exact opposite reason. I thought, and still think, the Apple Watch looks hideous. And no, I'm not exaggerating. I _really_ don't like it. This is coming from a non-apple user who thinks Apple makes beautiful hardware.
https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1400/1*hTina7sOR2a...
The Apple watch is clearly the ugly duck of the bunch.
So why is the photo terrible?
When I looked at that photo in context to the copy, I thought the intent was to compare size, not beauty. In that regard, it appears to be an effective photo.
Writing apps for it on the other hand, I'm quite eager to do ..
Feel free to say "I don't like rounded rectangles". But categorically calling rounded rectangles "not beautiful" or "nauseating" is laughable.
https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbah...
He's trying to claim that the watch interface isn't sharp. I don't know if that's true or not (I have never seen an Apple Watch) but it's downright mendacious to illustrate this claim with a grotesquely high-ISO, grainy image which makes the watch display look as bad as possible.
It's almost certainly not. According to https://www.apple.com/watch/technology/ it has a Retina display, and I don't think I've heard anyone complaining about a Retina iPhone's grainy, unpleasant screen.
Apple always hypes their products, but they usually lowball expectations. For the Watch, they've really ramped up expectations, really setting themselves up for a let-down. It's been obvious for a while that the Watch was going to be more like iPhone v1 than iPad v1: showing lots of promise, but needing a couple of iterations to nail it and really become a mass market product. So I expect good numbers, but not huge numbers.
So why would Apple risk the Watch being branded a failure by missing expectations? Apps. If devs expect a huge success, they'll jump in heavy. So when gen 2 or 3 rolls around the news stories will be about this watch being the one that rectifies the failure of gen 1, but it will be also be about the killer apps that you can get.
Where Apple succeeds is in creating products that people covet. White earbuds were a status symbol for some time until the knockoffs came. They signaled that you had enough disposable income for an expensive MP3 player.
Now they've made something you wear -- so there's no missing the signal.
And yes, I totally fall for it every time -- but as a developer I have a convenient alibi :)
Whether its Apple, Google, or both, we have a device that acts as a payment tool, light switch, id card, all at once seamlessly. Right now that device is the phone. We are still in the novelty phase. It is as seamless as reaching in to your pocket and navigating to the needed app. It is still optional. You can still get printed boarding passes, and most people do.
There will be a transition point where this digital "key" (I think this is the best term) becomes mandatory. Retail stores could eliminate shoplifting along with the checkout line. Airports, employers, government facilities, could exercise more precise control of who is on the premises. May be there are already places like this. Certainly you aren't calling an Uber anonymously.
Game Gear 160x144 pixel resolution 3.2 inche screen 67.27 ppi
[1] https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbah...
It's also so different from all of the other real-world photographs taken of the watch—for instance, see http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review, which has been passed around elsewhere in these comments. So I wouldn't take that photograph as representative of how the screen looks.
Maybe the colors of the apple watch UI just bleed a bit with the noisy grain of the photo? Because in store, they did look better to my eyes.
The first ones have to be convinced to switch to the Apple watch because, as a watch, it's a better watch than the one currently on their wrist.
The others just have to believe the Apple watch will answer a need that isn't met by any other device.
I think the second proposition has a fighting chance (maybe) but the first is an uphill battle. The Apple watch is ugly and, simply, not a real watch. Watch people will probably never switch.
That may not matter much, since they're a small minority anyway; but it would simplify Apple's marketing if it didn't try to talk to them at all.
Not a real watch? Why, the same reason e-books aren't "real books" because they don't smell like old paper? (not trying to be snide, it's a complaint I hear often) It tells time, better than any mechanical watch (50ms accuracy, change the face to whatever you like), and includes all that functionality you keep flipping your iPhone out of your pocket for every few minutes.
The Apple Watch is not a real watch mainly because there's a lag between the time you glance at it and the time you see what's on it -- if you turn your wrist. If your wrist is already turned, or you can't turn it (for example, because you're typing) then you have to touch the face to turn it on.
It's not waterproof. I'm not sure it's readable in very bright sunlight.
It's very accurate, yes... contrary to the most expensive watches, which are the less accurate of all watches. Believe it or not, extreme accuracy is not a required feature of "real" watches.
Like being a smartwatch that is designed to interface with the iPhone? I'd love to get a Pebble, but I've heard they can be buggy with iPhones.
I think it does. Apple has a lot of True Believers and there are also a lot of people who have never used Apple products but take every opportunity to bash them. When I see a critical post written by someone who uses and likes Apple products, I consider the points made more carefully than a positive post by a brainwashee or a negative post by someone with an axe to grind.
The bigger issue is think about how close you would have to hold the watch up to your face to make it that big in real life. If you did that you'd be able to see the pixels but you wouldn't hold it that close.
http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review has much better real life shots that mirror what I saw at the Apple store.
Don't compare apples and oranges. Just because you can wear this device on the wrist doesn't make it a watch.
Effectively, Apple is trying to replace traditional watch status-signalling with more smartphone-esque status-signalling, where a product looks more expensive the more like a mysterious featureless glowing glass bead it manages to seem.
The screen also isn't nearly as bad as his photo. I have no idea what's going on there. Yes it isn't as sharp as my iPhone 6 but it's not blurry at all.
The only thing that I agree with is that apples bands all look like crap. Their buckles on the leather look very feminine, and everything has a cheap feel. The one that doesn't is the Milanese loop. It looked gorgeous. Too bad it grabbed my arm hair and the sales guys said that was very common. Oops.
I got the cheapest band and will wait for the 3rd party market to do something decent.
is tired. For the record, Im not interested in a watch from anyone, I don't like things on my wrist hands or face that didn't come with me from birth. I think it was inevitable that Apple entered this market, and Im sure that for some people it will exceed their expectations, and for some, disappoint.
Which is a sign for hope from Apple. The truth of the aWatch is that only the success of the $350-$400 models matters. If those sell well and summon up customer enthusiasm, then the watch has at least a fighting chance to be successful. If people don't like the $350-$400 models, then all the enthusiasm in the world for the $1,000-$17,000 models will not create an ecosystem, and the aWatch will be, at best, a tiny niche product.
If Apple has recognized that and not bought into their own marketing hype about premium whatever, and focused all their attention on making the basic model as good as possible, then they're making the smart play.
I still don't want to buy one as the battery life is too short and I would rather wait for the apps to catch up so it can be more useful, but I don't think it's the failure this guy is setting it up to be.
Perfect? maybe not. But way better than anything else out there.
With the Apple Watch you have watch enthusiasts though who come out and discuss why it is a poor comparison to industry standards established for the market. Ultimately I think a lot of "watch enthusiasts" will see through the marketing and be displeased while tech enthusiasts will judge the product on different standards.
