Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>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.

Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...



No, this is a huge impediment to its usefulness. Having to carry around a phone while running is a drudge regardless of how serious of a runner or athlete you are. Not to mention so many other sports that could benefit from this but won't. This is especially so considering the larger size of the iPhone 6 and especially the iPhone 6 plus.


What casual runner goes running without their phone? That's how we get GPS, work with Nike+ gear, and can be reached if someone needs us or make a call if we need to.

How many leave their phone on the house and go out jogging?


> What casual runner goes running without their phone?

Me for one. I run 2x a week for about a half-hour each time in the park near my apartment building. That's about as casual as it gets?

I used to run with my phone, but I recently bought a tiny mp3 player and a Casio wristwatch for running. I don't care about GPS since I know my park, and if someone needs me I'll talk to them in a half hour.

Needing to bring a phone with me makes this watch absolutely a no deal.


Casual runner, cyclist, recreational triathlete. Phone always on me; it's one of the few times I want the phone functionality in case of mishaps. Running vests with cyclist-style tail pockets plz!


> What casual runner goes running without their phone?

Judging by the answers you got, ones who have oversized phones and think that shaving a little weight is worth not being able to call emergencies (who cares, they can use a strangers phone if that happens, just like the guys who cycle and skip tools, patches and pumps and then end up asking people passing them by, and anyway emergencies happen to other people).

OTOH, I don't know why anyone would ever wear a watch after 1993.


I wear an automatic watch.

1) I like being able to know time and date at a quick glance -- the ease of this is light years ahead of any smartphone. 2) It never runs out of juice since it doesn't have a battery. 3) It looks good (IMO). 4) I irrationally like the fact that my moving about gives life to a tiny beating mechanism. For that reason my watch has a power reserve meter.

Have zero interest in smartwatches though. I have enough crap to keep charged as is.


I wear one all the time. It's purely fashion.


Hah, I buy this argument far more than any claims that people need accurate time measurement at notice short enough that taking a phone from a pocket/bag is unacceptable. Though I do think watches are hopelessly retro :-)


I mean, don't get me wrong. It is an added convenience to have access to the time a bit more quickly. If I'm checking the time, there's a decent chance I'm in a rush for something.

But yeah, almost purely fashion.


Casual runner here. Could not imagine running with my phone.


I think the point is that lots of runners would prefer not to bring their phone if that was an option and this watch could have enabled that. It's a legitimate (minor) annoyance to carry your phone while running.


It's more than a minor annoyance. The problem is how to carry it. Pockets are out of the question (for those that have them) as is any sort of bag or purse. I used to have a band for my old iPod that would strap to my arm. I suppose going back to that contraption with a phone is a possibility, but considering the discomfort and weight, not to mention the possibility of rain destroying the phone, I would do anything to avoid that. And if it's on my arm anyway, why would I need the watch interface?


Easy, get a race belt.

These are nylon belts with a buckle and a small expandable pouch. They also have 2 toggles to attach your race bib too.

They are just big enough to hold your phone, keys and some cash or cards.

You'll see people doing fun runs wear them to avoid carrying a pack for their stuff. To prevent water damage, put your item in a ziplock bag.


Completely agree.


For less serious runners, the GPS serves no noticeable purpose. Without the GPS, the Apple Watch can still track your speed and distance.


It certainly serves some purpose to map your runs even for less serious runners. It would also be cool to have music without being tethered to the phone.


Every runner I know, casual or not, myself included. Not to mention other athletes in such sports as football, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc.

It's very inconvenient to run with a phone and almost impossible to play other sports with one.


>What casual runner goes running without their phone?

ME!! I don't want something bulky weighing me down.


Of course I always have my phone!


Not to mention women's running clothes don't fit phones typically.


I carry my phone around while running all the time. How else would I get music and GPS tracking?


Having run quite a number of marathons, half-marathons, 5k, 10k and all distances in between, I have noticed that there are still a good amount of runners out there (whether serious or not) who use their 4"/5" phones for tracking.


I was happy to use my Pebble and now, my android wear devices to track my running pace. I run about 4 miles a day. Honestly, the iWatch is just too pricey for what I would use it for.


If $300 sounds to much for a fashion item, it's probably not for you. Heck, I don't think I'll buy one either.

But then again, consider that people buy $300+ headphones (Dre's) because of how they look, fashion etc. And they are not even the best headphones out there, whereas this is probably the best smartwatch.

Or that people bought iPods for $300 or more just 6 years ago. Without video or phone or camera. Heck, I bought my first iPod for ~$800 10 years ago (complete with a black and white LCD display).

And that's the 1st gen. In a year, it will be like $200 or $100 for the same thing or the new model.

So, yeah, it might flop or it might sell, but it won't be due to its price.


"If $300 sounds to much for a fashion item, it's probably not for you."

Fair enough, but i have to say, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here. So apple releases it and suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch. Just a few short months ago, i was reading nytimes articles about the current crop of smartwatches saying "'They’re just not that attractive,' said Mr. Dawson, 'they are all clunky and square'"

But now suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch?

(I understand fashion is fickle, but this is really really fickle :P)


Agreed. Apple make beautiful devices that are fashion accessories... but this isn't one of them, in my opinion.


I know it's wasteful to cut the corners off LCDs to make them round, but I am a little surprised that Apple didn't go that route just for novelty value if nothing else. Would've made a nice interface paradigm with a rotary dial on the face too.


Round LCDs do have an undeniably cool look: http://www.zerotohundred.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/MG_5...

But I have a feeling Porsche has just used an ordinary square panel here, with its edges concealed by the gauge bezel. A watch designer doesn't have room to pull off a visual trick like that.


You're surprised that Apple didn't make a fundamental design decision for novelty value? Not sure you have been paying attention to Apple lately.


Ok, ok; bad phrasing on my part. I meant that with Apple's branding around affordable luxury and challenging the status quo, a round screen would most definitely have been a talking point for this product and a differentiator from everything else on the market.

That said, I've since been reminded about the Moto360 which _did_ have a round screen, so my point is moot anyway.


usually, the more into the hobby, the more you spend into it. Not the opposite.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: