News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Apple Watch by tolmasky on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @04:38PM (#8292907)
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.

Re:The Apple Watch by jlebar on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @10:18PM (#8294556)
> 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.

Re:The Apple Watch by ChristianBundy on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @10:30PM (#8294598)
Your statistic confused me until I realized you were [assumedly] referencing females who keep their phones in their purses/bags.
Re:The Apple Watch by hayleyanthony on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @11:18PM (#8294743)
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.
Re:The Apple Watch by kenrikm on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @11:53AM (#8297165)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=female

From Wikipedia:

"It is not etymologically related to the word male, but in the late 14th century the spelling was altered in English to parallel the spelling of male."

I honestly don't understand how "female" is any worse then "woman" honest question I'm easily the least sexist person you could run into (ask my wife) but sometimes it seems like no mater what you're still going to offend someone. :(

Re:The Apple Watch by jlebar on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @12:21PM (#8297332)
I think the issue is that "female" can refer to any species, whereas "woman" refers only to humans. So when someone obliquely refers to women and someone responds "oh, you're talking about females!", the subtext is that they have now realized that we're talking about women, but haven't quite realized that women are people too.

It would be the same as calling someone a "human" rather than a "person". Like aliens do in the movies. Maybe you don't feel that's dehumanizing, but I think a lot of people would.

(Classicist pet peeve: A word's etymology has nothing to do with its modern denotation and connotation.)

Re:The Apple Watch by astrange on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @05:55PM (#8299410)
Personally, I like to imagine the post is being written by a Ferengi. There's more than sufficient evidence for it.
Re:The Apple Watch by wmeredith on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @10:16AM (#8296626)
Oh lord, get over it. Female is degrading now?
Re:The Apple Watch by yusefnapora on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @10:54AM (#8296827)
Well, it does make you sound like a Ferengi.
Re:The Apple Watch by wmeredith on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @01:08PM (#8297603)
What's a Ferengi?

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

Re:The Apple Watch by astrange on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @05:57PM (#8299427)
There's plenty of other languages where the words for "female" and "male" are different for people and animals.
Re:The Apple Watch by dzhiurgis on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @08:15AM (#8296156)
a.i. males in medical community?
Re:The Apple Watch by UrMomReadsHN on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @11:31PM (#8294784)
Phones already do this. My android phone vibrates when I have walking directions on and I need to turn.
Re:The Apple Watch by Kurtz79 on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @05:33PM (#8293333)
I think interface wise Cook has the right of it when he says they didn't just strap a reduced iPhone on the wrist.

It's clear that they spent a large amount of time and effort with the haptic feedback and the crown.

But functionality wise... well I completely agree with you.

I can't see anything a smartphone cannot do, better and more efficiently, with the exception of the heart rate sensor.

Some functions in particular seem very awkward to me: I cannot see a reasonable way of using it as a phone or an audio player, in public, without bluetooth earphones.

With mobile phones, mp3 players and smartphones the value proposition was clear, but what is the killer application for smartwatches ?

That said, I would be far from surprised if they sell like hotcakes.

Re:The Apple Watch by crazychrome on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @06:57AM (#8295952)
agree. What's the killer App for it? Maybe it's the HealthKit related things, but they hardly appeal to core Apple buyers: young people! It'll be a historical change if Apple starts to add oldlies into its base.
Re:The Apple Watch by aaronem on Tuesday September 09, 2014 @06:11PM (#8293596)
> no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist

There's a much higher density of tactile nerve endings in your wrist than in your thigh; even if you can reliably feel your phone vibrating in your pocket (I can't!), that's no guarantee you'd be able to discriminate finely enough for haptic feedback to be of use, especially since the phone's orientation in your pocket is not guaranteed.

Re:The Apple Watch by mooism2 on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @02:29AM (#8295195)
Re haptic feedback:

I'm forever feeling my phone vibrate in my pocket when it isn't vibrating... and still manage not to notice when it does vibrate.

Perhaps I would perceive the signal more accurately if it was on my wrist instead of my thigh.

Re:The Apple Watch by wildpeaks on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @02:46AM (#8295239)
Until you start having the same phantom vibrations in your wrist as well.