Hacker News Reader

>Thus, Apple may say they want to sell a bajillion watches, but what they really need to do is sell enough watches and have enough credibility that if smart watches disrupt smart phones, Apple already has a seat at the table.

That's a fine strategy followed by many companies. It's not usually Apple's strategy though. They pride themselves on being a huge company with a very limited product range. Even in the product ranges they do have they're not usually the first one out with new products. iPod/iPhone/iPad were all very polished products launched into markets that already had quite a few products but still took over. They have a few niche products but the watch seemed to be another of those big bets which is why people are looking at it attentively.

The Apple Watch had 50% market share among smartwatches within one quarter after it came out. That's insane, particularly since their competitors had a 2-year head start. Normally a company is lucky to get 50% market share at all, and it takes many years.

The problem with the absolute numbers is that wearables as a whole is a new market (in the Lean Startup) sense. You can't rush adoption in a new market: no matter how much advertising you throw at it, it still takes time for people to assimilate what the product category can do, to identify why they'd want one, and to make the purchasing decision. The best you can do is to establish a dominant position within the market so that as it grows, you grow along with it.

Exactly. When my friends/strangers ask me about my watch they always ask if I NEED to have one. I always tell them the same thing-the Apple Watch makes my day better/easier and I like the look and feel. Do I NEED it? No, but if I'm not wearing it I feel it's absence. I've also gotten way more random people asking me about it then any other device I've ever owned. Strangers will walk up and start conversations with me when they see it on my wrist.

Strangers will walk up and start conversations with me when they see it on my wrist.

The DeLorean Effect.

I had a conversation along these lines with my friend the other day. Our conclusion was that it seems like a neat thing to have but so far there isn't anything that makes people say 'I MUST have this!'

I thought maps/navigation were the killer app for smartphones - for many other things you could use a laptop instead, but being able to use your phone to navigate was just so damn useful that you'd be a fool not to buy one if you could afford it. Neither Google Glass nor the Apple Watch seem to have hit on a magic thing that they do so much better than a phone, so far.

It took 3 years after the iPhone came out to get turn-by-turn navigation, though. Google Glass has been around for about 3 (although I've heard it actually does have some killer apps among surgeons & firefighters and stuff), but the Apple Watch just came out last year.

I will tell you that using Apple Maps for directions while using the watch is great-it knocks on your wrist in one way to alert you that you're going to need to take an action, then it vibrates in a different way to tell you to turn right or left, or continue on straight. Its a small feature but when you're driving someplace busy or walking down an unfamiliar street its really very nice to have this kind of feedback without taking your eyes off the road/sidewalk.

For me it would need a large flexible screen on the palm side. This would be much more comfortable to use and with a camera would allow video calls and selfies (if that is your thing). Also, being able to hold it up to the horizon would allow map directions with an augmented reality feel. The other (normal) side of the watch could have had a tradition analogue clock face.

I actually bought an Android Wear watch for the maps. I ride a bike, and having a watch tell me what direction I should turn next and buzz me when the turn comes up is actually pretty useful.

Google Glass and Android Wear have maps and navigation, and have from the beginning. It's pretty cool too.

Not only is it jewelry essentially, but it's jewelry with a relatively short shelf life.

and ugly.

that's what the top commenter fail to realize. nobody needs expensive watches, but the communicate that you have disposable income and maybe good taste. an apple watch communicates you're a nerd. which may be quaint in some parts of San Francisco.

> nobody needs expensive watches, but the communicate that you have disposable income

I respectfully disagree.

Like all objects, watches hold different meanings to different people. For you, it sounds like they are a social signalling mechanism - but not for everyone. For example, if you collect watches you'll appreciate many aspects of these wonderful objects. Take the Omega Speedmaster 105.003 - it's vintage, it's probably expensive, and it looks like your grandfathers watch. I could care less what it signals to others, for me - it's the watch NASA sent to the moon. It's mechanical. It's an object that I love! I wear it because it pleases me to look at it.

However, having said that - I now wear an Apple watch for a completely different reason - it's functional. It's more useful than the Omega.

Wearing a watch is not about social signalling for everyone. Some people just like watches :-)

Let me know if you start thinking about selling that Ed White ;)

Got an original Broad arrow to trade? ;-)

I have two broad arrows, but they’re not Speedmasters :)

https://omegaforums.net/attachments/img_0405-jpg.125750/

Totally agree with you. Before switching to the Apple Watch(black stainless steel metal strap), I also had an Omega Seamaster!

> Take the Omega Speedmaster 105.003

An interesting example. If they had been assembled under license by a little-known NASA contracted-company in Illinois, would you still be as keen on it?

Until 1979 Soviet cosmonauts used their standard pilot-issue Strela watch, including on EVAs. In the West it was branded and sold as Sekonda[0]. Without the cachet of a luxury brand and extensive marketing it is almost unknown despite being just as functional as the Speedmaster.

http://www.netgrafik.ch/russian_space_watches.htm

[0] The Sekonda trademark was later sold and today has no connection with the original watch

> If they had been assembled under license by a little-known NASA contracted-company in Illinois, would you still be as keen on it?

Yes, the brand doesn't hold a lot of meaning for me - in any case (no pun intended) it's not just Omega. Arguably one of the most important parts - he movement itself, wasn't actually designed by Omega. It's a Lemania Calibre 1873 (Omega branded this as Calibre 861).

Extreme temperatures, vibration, pressure, acceleration, shock and so on; the 1873 enclosed within an Omega case survived all of this with +- 5 seconds per day accuracy. Moreover, it outperformed the qualification conditions against other well-funded, experienced watch makers. For me, this is impressive.

If the same watch was built by a little-known company out of Illinois, I'd be even more impressed!

P.S. Thanks very much for the information on Soviet watches, I'm really interested to learn more about these models. Thanks again!

I guess I don't need anything except food, clothes and shelter. But I do like/prefer wearing a watch (I'm old). I like to know what time it is or getting to be, and I prefer briefly lifting my wrist within sight, rather than reaching in my pocket. I use most of what's on my Casio geek-watch: time, 5 alarms, stopwatch, timer. I don't use the compass or barometer.

I bought the Apple watch to experiment with WatchOS - however, now I find myself promoting / apologising to my friends that also have a keen interest in watches. It's all I wear these days.

If Apple can displace the swiss watch I used to wear from my wrist, they're moving in the right direction in my opinion.

The question is - does anyone really need a watch when they have a phone in their pocket? No.

However, do I feel properly dressed if I go out without a watch? No.

It is far easier to glance at your watch than it is to pull your device out and turn the screen on turn it off and put it away. Neither is hard but I can check the time in 1/2 a second while doing other things rather than 4-5 seconds and interrupt what I'm doing.

I haven't worn a watch in years but I would not buy an Apple or any other "smart" watch. I've always preferred a simple analog watch that just tells the time and that's it.

For what it's worth, I find the ability to add a weather widget to my watch has been a major win for me. Just a little number in the corner giving me the current temperature. It's that sort of thing that has won me over to the Apple Watch.

This. Especially in the range of a ~$1000 watch. A Movado will cost you $500-$1500...it's not a high end motorized watch, but it looks nice. The Apple Watch is certainly more useful, one can argue it looks better than a lot of watches in the $1000 range. It wouldn't replace an uber luxury timepiece, but I certainly think its the best watch you can buy in that price range and it is BY FAR more useful.

Then difference is what is the value of a 5 year old Movado? What is the % value maintained by a 5 year old iPhone?

A good mechanical watch lasts you for life. The life of an iPhone is 3 years. Who really needs more items going obsolete every 3 years?

If I could swim with the apple watch and have it track my laps, I would totally buy one. The non-waterproofing was why I didn't buy it.

Funny story about that:

There are lots of reports of people swimming with their Apple watches. I shower with mine on all the time. But Apple is simply not quite ready to guarantee that you can swim with your watch.

Does its heart-rate monitoring work while swimming with it? (I'm in the market looking to buy a new HRM)

You'd figure it would have some level of waterproofing, as any sport device is expected to handle a lot of sweaty athletes.

It's splash and water resistant (not proof) so the sweat isn't an issue. They have a support page detailing the water resistance that might be useful for you: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT205000

There are reports that it can handle water MUCH better than that. Showers, swimming, etc.

But Apple doesn't promise it and it would void your warranty. It's a question of if you're willing to risk $400+ on people's anecdotes or not.

I've been swimming with my apple watch for several months. Heart rate monitoring works (not sure if it's less accurate somehow? but it works), but there's nothing out there for tracking laps. The screen is also basically impossible to use while the buttons are too easy to trigger accidentally, so I start a workout and lock the watch, then unlock after I get out of the pool.

I was considering writing my own app for laps, and I do believe there was a story shortly after the watch came out where someone else worked on an app like that, but obviously it would not be allowed on the store. :(

I was shocked and awe-fucked when I accidentally went swimming with my Volvo key years ago, and it stopped working.

They don't claim it's waterproof, but plenty of anecdotal evidence supports that it does just fine while swimming.

I've been swimming with my AppleWatch from day one.

How is it for swimming? Do you use it to track your laps? I have a Garmin Forerunner 920xt right now and it's a pain because it's too bulky and also doesn't track my kick sets (since I'm rehabbing a leg injury I do about 1200 m per workout just of kick). Thanks!

> Thus, Apple may say they want to sell a bajillion watches, but what they really need to do is sell enough watches and have enough credibility that if smart watches disrupt smart phones, Apple already has a seat at the table.

And that is the difference between Apple-with-Jobs and Apple-without-Jobs. Apple with Jobs didn't worry about "if smart watches disrupt..."; Apple with Jobs built products that DID disrupt.

Um, except plenty of evidence exists that Jobs was involved with the Apple Watch plans from the beginning -- supposedly all major product lines released through 2015 began under his watch (no pun intended).

Big difference between a project beginning (experimentation) and going all the way to launching...

Jobs had plenty of duds, as well. Remember the ROKR? Or the iPod Hi-Fi? If you do, then you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, well, you just proved my point.

Anyway, disruption doesn't happen in a year with the first version of a product in a brand-new market category. But when watches do become capable enough to disrupt phones, Apple is well-positioned to ride that wave.

Or... DID EVENTUALLY disrupt. Or DID get killed and forgotten when it didn't disrupt. Apple has had it's share of failures.