Reply With QuoteI'll vote GMT ;)
Just thought I'd share with you a few pictures of the Apple watch, 38mm in Stainless Steel. This one has a leather strap and classic buckle. It's not mine so I don't really have an in-depth review but it's certainly a nice thing. Personally I will be getting a 42mm version as I think this one looks a little small on my wrist.
For me it will never replace any of my current watches but there is definitely a space in my collection for one as a gadget lover. They will only get better through the years. Haters will always hate but I believe the Apple watch will spark a new generation of watch wearers.
I'll vote GMT ;)
A way better looking one would be
but imo the Apple Watch looks better still.
Knowing that nothing electronic was going to remove my watches from my wrist, I really haven't paid much attention to the Apple watch. This was the first that I knew that it came in 2 sizes. It certainly makes sense, suiting various wrist sizes.
It also got me wondering what the take up for them will be male v female?
This - reasonably pleasing is the Apple watch. What battery life is it? Waterproof?Originally Posted by smalltime
I think other digitals are more useful - and some of the information on the Apple watch is superfluous imo.
On your wrist it looks great. Perfect fit. Well done your mate.
Do you think they will be a robbery magnet, just like iphones and the like?
Well hidden in the small print
"Apple Watch is splash and water resistant but not waterproof. You can, for example, wear and use Apple Watch during exercise, in the rain and while washing your hands, but submerging Apple Watch is not recommended. Apple Watch has a water-resistance rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. The leather straps are not water resistant."
Great looking Rolex !
I had never heard of IPX7, so a quick Google brought this up
By achieving the IPX7 standard, Apple Watch should be able to withstand immersion in up to 1 meter of water for 30 minutes. Exposure to sweat, rain or the shower should be fine (although mist from the shower has been known to creep into devices…) but extended submersion is best avoided — so no swimming or washing the dishes.
Thanks to Wiki:
"A rating of X for one or more of the protection criteria can be erroneously misinterpreted as "no protection." To illustrate, a piece of electronic equipment rated IPX7 will almost certainly demonstrate a robust resistance to the ingress of particles, even though a rating for ingress of solids hasn't been formally assigned. Hence, an X designation shouldn't be automatically misconstrued as a lack of protection."
"Liquid ingress protection 7:
Immersion up to 1 m
Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion).
Test duration: 30 minutes..."
Quite ok for 99% of my watch wearing. I myself are limited to some 30 seconds of immersion at 1 meter.
I'm still on the fence. Need to see one in the flesh I think. While I don't doubt the build quality is high, I'm not convinced smart watches (and this one in particular) will be as revolutionary as some believe.
Does anyone know when these will be readily available? I know the release day was Friday but it appears only preorders are being fulfilled and I've heard quotes of May/June to buy over the counter?
FFF
A friend enquired in the Apple shop the other day, and he was told the waiting list ran to July.
I think it will be June before we see them available for purchase in store. My mates online order had quoted delivery 14th-28th May but it arrived yesterday unexpectedly. I guess in-store availability will ultimately depend on supply catching up with demand for online orders first.
Why do they do this.....surely they must of anticipated high demand for these. Marketing campaigns running for ages yet only enough to fulfil preorders, just seems a bit silly.hey ho
It reminds me of the Sinclair "Black Watch"
They seem to do this with so many products.
I am not a marketing man, but I am sure there is some logic behind it. Apple certainly are an incredible success.
Yeh,perhaps holding them back makes you want one even more.......a bit like my missus hiding the chocolate biscuits from me, the cow!!
Here's someone testing its waterproofness.
Yours does that too?!!! My missus keeps hiding chocolate buttons! lol
If they fix the battery issue, these will be the future (next to our mechanicals)
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
"Up to 18 hours" really isn't good enough. I wonder what it achieves when it is being fully utilised?
I can't abide these things and I hope they fail to catch on.
I doubt it very much if they will fail to catch on.
Out of interest why do you hope that? Not everyone is in to just mechanical watches.....modern day tech however much you hate it is a way of life now.
had not heard of IPX7 either but it makes sense now it would need a waterproof test for electronics because its a computer NOT a watch. Wiki article makes interesting reading.
kev
Myriad reasons, but essentially because i loath the very notion of "wearable technology" that doesn't serve any important purpose, and in some measure because i loath the hypocrisy of the Apple brand.
99% of all Apple products hold very little interest for me, but I can say for sure that this poxy watch is at the bottom of my Apple wish list.
I'm drawn to the design of the Apple watch and the strap changing mechanism is well thought out, so aesthetically I like it. However I see no need in my life for a companion to my iPhone, an already very capable and much under-utilised (in my case) piece of hardware.
Like everything Apple I'm interested to see where they take it.
I wonder how long it will be before some idiot checks their watch for emails or messages whilst driving and crashes into somebody? Something vibrating on your wrist begging for attention, sounds irritating an dangerous. How many messages are actually worth risking your life for?!
Granny Smith is at the top of my appple wish list
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
A fair point, although I suspect many more accidents will continue to be caused by people looking at their phones.
All of them, surely!
My inability to get animated by tech like this is the bad effect it has on person-to-person interaction, and person-to-surrounding interaction. People in airports and on the metro etc. already act like zombies, staring moronically at their little phone screens and not paying any attention to their surroundings. Even in meetings, the faintest bleep and attention is rapt in the direction of whatever gadgetry made the noise. I think smartwatches will make things worse.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I think a smart watch might be much more dangerous - I have Bluetooth for my phone in the car (like most cars now it was fitted as standard) and frankly never text or look at my phone whilst driving. Apart from it being obviously stupid and dangerous I can't easily fish it out of my picket whilst sitting down and driving even in a traffic jam! I also have a clock on the dash so don't ever glance at my watch to check the time. But imagine a youngster - you know the type, glued to their ruddy phone - gets a message, instinctively turns the wheel to see the message their watch is buzzing and vibrating to urgently pass on - and wallop, car driven off course into traffic/a tree/ goodness knows what. Just a stupid idea IMHO
The digital invasion is well underway and cannot be resisted at this late stage. The smart tracking technology that formerly resided in your pocket has now migrated to your wrist. Whatever will they think of next?
They will probably want to strap the stuff across our eyeballs?
*thinks*
...hang on a minute!
Wasn't that what Google tried with the digital specs - Google Glass?
You better not watch this then.....this'll blow your mind, the next step guys, best get used to it.
http://youtu.be/9J7GpVQCfms
Whoah, that is cool. Please tell me that this is real?!
Tbh not sure, they've projected it on to the wrist but I don't think it looks anything (atm) like it does in the YouTube vid. There is a website with more info...I think it's coming but not sure when.Whoah, that is cool. Please tell me that this is real?!
http://cicret.com/wordpress/
Last edited by Franky Four Fingers; 25th April 2015 at 21:24.
The leather straps look like moulded plastic. What's the deal?
The digital revolution stared late 19th c. and moved to the wrist in the 1920s; the Rolex Marconi (AS340 inside) was one exampleThe digital invasion is well underway and cannot be resisted at this late stage. The smart tracking technology that formerly resided in your pocket has now migrated to your wrist. Whatever will they think of next?
They will probably want to strap the stuff across our eyeballs?
*thinks*
...hang on a minute!
untill quite recently Alpha made a homage to the art nouveau one.
It went electronic in 1971.
The Apple watch sure is electronic but as you can see very popular with a NÓN digital display of time.
Intersting that the luddites are now desperately launching a safety argument. Never heard them about chonograph watches with a puzzle dial which takes quite a bit more time to read than
It's old English Vinyl.
It's long been established that dials are just as fast to read as digital displays.
The time taken to read the time off a busy chronograph would be a little longer than the instant it takes to read a very simple dial, but still nowhere near that to read a tweet about someone going om nom nom, or someone else announcing to strangers that they're now single, or your boss barking at you that he wants the numbers on his desk by 3 a.m... so he can ignore them until after breakfast the next day... The point is, you start using this thing as what it is, which is phonic extension strapped to your wrist, you may as well use a phone that's actually strapped to your wrist!
I don't think this thing will be as bad as Google Glass, which by some accounts encouraged people to punch wearers in the face. I'm glad that abomination died on its arse. This is much more discreet and has an element of utility, and of course it has the massive Rolex advertising machine behind it to help it along, and attract and retain top consumer business.
Sorry, Apple. Apple marketing machine.
Last edited by andrew; 26th April 2015 at 10:30.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Yes and no.
In it´s simplest form the up is good analogue dial is the fastets to read out at one merely needs to glance.
This is happily assimilated as proof of anolgie clock concept by taditionalists.
However, even a single hand dial with numbers already is pushing it:
I find a two hander time only not even on par with HH:MM for a user who grew up with analogue clock time; me.
Furthermore a diplay in digits is inherently accurate.
The chronograph is more often than not a cluttered mess to look at. More so at an angle as it will be when driving. I agree that for the experienced, accustomed user the extra time is minimal but even half a second means 10 meters travelled at only 70 km/h.
If the safety argument is held up then please do so properly:
One should not look at ANY wristwatch or gadget when driving and an HH:MM in the instrument panel in front is safest for looking at the time.
^^^My thoughts exactly
I'll agree with this, although I have an analogue clock and I can read it out of the corner of my eye - I don't even have to look at it directly to clock the time (ho ho). It will be interesting to see how many smartwatch owners - not just those with Apples - use their devices to mimic a last-century analogue watch face on the displays of their new gadgets though...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Only works if you shave a rectangle shape on your arm...
Ant
110% agree. I have trained myself not to even blink when driving a car. My eyeballs get rather dry but I can just cope as long as I turn the air con off (while stationery before I've set off as I wouldn't want to look down to find the switch while driving).
They look quite good - but as I rarely wear a Quartz for amything other than mud and tool work, then it's a no from me - but a few friends have said try simply must have one - strange!
It's just a matter of time...
a bit like Rolex then
Seriously, there ís a large brand factor involved and in this case enlarged by the ´cool´ tech aspect. As such it is obviously totally beyond the wrsitwatch as an accurate instrument to tell time like quartz tech is. It is mainly about the real estate, the wrist, to advertise image. Hence too the violent clash with the traditionalists. Have a sweep over the opening topic and you will get an impression when you pass from the Apple over the Rolex to the Apple. It really is a total head on image crash. Not about time telling at all.
Perhaps
My initial like of Rolex was based on the way they looked. I'm sure brand had some impact for my purchases, but I know what I'm getting. To that same aim, I know what the Apple products brings too, and it ain't that much to be honest (he says typing on an ipad that increasing my typos exponentially), they use old tech (possibly not as old as a mechanical watch), and wrap it up in a nice ish looking case.
The watch as a first version just isn't for me but maybe one day they will hit the spot to really capture my attention - but I'd want an auto/solar with all the toys, and 5 year plus attention schedules.
It's just a matter of time...
Posting Permissions
