Reply With QuoteTwo guys on the train yesterday had them on and looked utter belters it was as comical as the old Breifcase sized mobile phones that were not mobile
It seems Apple's testing has yet again failed. Remember bendy-iPhone-gate, well now we have tattoo-gate...
http://www.news.com.au/technology/ga...-1227327892753
It's something to do with the rear sensors not being able to see the user's skin if they have tattooed wrists, and therefore it locks up.
Two guys on the train yesterday had them on and looked utter belters it was as comical as the old Breifcase sized mobile phones that were not mobile
RIAC
Well, if you have 5 guys that bring their phones together they can make the Mickey Mice dance, apparently.Originally Posted by 100thmonkey
Who gives a toss anyway, there will be something new next year and those watches will be forgotten.
I can imagine
We're still using those in norfolkI can imagine
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Didn't FitBit users report this a while back?
Surely this is not unique to Apple? As mentioned FitBit etc would have the same problem? Or is this just another opportunity to bash Apple?!
I didn't think fitbit's trackers used the same sort of tech, apart from maybe in their newest range that does measure heartbeats--but they've only been out a few months, haven't they? Have people reported problems with them already? Given the fiasco over their rash-causing tracker a couple of years ago, the last thing they need is another issue.
But then again, how many people have tattooed wrists? Must be a small minority. Although I do note seeing a few on the Friday thread :)
Don't think Apple should have to design their product around people with tattoos.
They don't have to but given the popularity of tattoos these days, particularly in what I assume is their target demographic, they'd be wise to try. I don't have any tattoos btw, just observing.
Ah. Here's where I saw it (on Reddit): https://www.reddit.com/r/fitbit/comm...at_on_my_left/
But what will the hipsters do?!
Another reason never to get a tattoo then.
Fair point, however do they state on the box that it will not work on a tattooed wrist?
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Personally I find the AppleWatchAnties the most comical.
Why care??
It´s only a wristwatch and taste is subjectve anyway.
As to functionality either with or without tattoos, that is a bit meuh too since how functional is a mechtech chrono for most wearers yet that does´t get thát kicked into the corner for being poser crap.
Thats amazing seiko......that's red hot Jetsons technology you have there in Norfolk.....in Devon we're still lighting beaconsor sending Ravens ....
I doubt prosthetic wrists are mentioned either.
And missed the point again.
It's not a case of the user not choosing to use the functions available, it's a case of the user not being able to use the functions available.
It's descriminatory against people with body art, tattooism
- - - Updated - - -
Put it on the wrong arm and you might think you're dead!
I suppose it's inevitable given the optical technology used to measure heart rate; Apple will surely be aware of it (a system which relies on shining light through the skin will obviously be affected by certain sorts of tattoos), but probably calculated that the proportion of their customer base affected would be negligible.
Won't be be long before smartwatches measure heart rate via some kind of ultra-sensitive electrical discharge technology, anyway... ;)
What am I supposed to be looking at on that film? They're walking along with no tattoos and it shows 0ft distance, then on their tattooed wrist they're walking along and it shows 0ft again. What have I missed?
I think the point is that the watch froze on tattoo arm😁
From that video, the 'crown' is on the left, so if you wear it on the correct wrist ;) it must be fiddly to use have to either hide the screen with your hand or twisting your right hand upside down.
Unless you can flip the image of course
Which you can.
Ahh, thanks, that makes more sense
I didn't see the text under the OP's film!
This is such an urban myth.
Think about it, the Apple watch only works on skin the same colour as a techno geek in Cupertino?
If that were the case, cries of "foul" from tattooed people would be the least of Apple's worries...
No idea, should it say that amputees may not be able to get the full functionality put the product also?
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Apparently 30% of UK residents have a tattoo so it's quite a chunk of their target market. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't the UK one of the most tattooed nations on earth? I was at the gym today and must have been virtually the only non-tattooed bloke there. Marks me out as an individual
But of that 30%, what percentage has a dark tattoo on the top of their wrist?Apparently 30% of UK residents have a tattoo so it's quite a chunk of their target market. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't the UK one of the most tattooed nations on earth? I was at the gym today and must have been virtually the only non-tattooed bloke there. Marks me out as an individual
Sssjt. Don´t break off that last piece of straw they are clutching. It is such a nice illustration of the sillyness too, so please let it be ;-)
I couldn't care less if the apple watch is a success or not, today I'm wearing a Casio dw5600e so I'm no stranger to a bit of cheap quartz digital - I just don't think a smart watch is something I really need or want at the moment. I have an android phone (having got bored with the tiny iPhone 4 screen and moving to HTC, and finding it not in any way inferior to apple) I don't do twitter or Facebook so have no urgent alerts, don't use my phone or email for work, and have 'branded' autos and cheap quartz digitals and ana digis, all of which are properly water resistant and don't want to transmit my location, heart rate and buying habits to the mothership. I stopped being an early adopter in my 20's - my little trip to the loft this morning unearthed 3 minidisc player/recorders, a betamax machine and a selection of hard drives for recording TV, all defunct and now in a skip. I've learnt my lesson buying tech too early, and I'm sure there will be plenty if skips containing an apple watch 5 years from now (and whilst my dw5600e is probably still on its first battery)!
Flash back 35 years... "I couldn't care less if this 'desktop computer' and 'word processor' are a success or not, today I'm using my Remington typewriter, the ribbons are relatively cheap to replace, and if I want to send my letter to a friend I don't even need a stamp, I can use a fax machine. I just don't think a desktop computer is something I really need or want at the moment!" ;-)
Sorry but that scenario is not remotely comparable. With a smart phone in my pocket and any (or no watch at all) on my wrist, how am I in any way compromising my access to 2015 and its myriad of technological wonders? The apple watch is just an iPhone accessory. It doesn't actually do anything remarkable.
You're right, and that's why I don't want one either. But give them ten years...
I agree - personally I'd love an excuse to buy an amazing gadget that gave me the same buzz as my first smartphone, but I don't think the apple watch is it (yet). I like wearing an automatic watch but tbh find myself wearing a g shock quite often - apart from being ugly they are functionally superior to a watch full of cogs, impervious to abuse and cheap. I'm sure within 10 years the smart watch will just be called a watch - most teenagers I see don't seem to wear watches at all though?!
Works if you equate the power, flexibility and utility of a word processor (and all the other things that infrastructure is capable of) with a peripheral, sure ;).
I'd say the iWatch is more akin to one of those additional numbers-only keypads you sometimes see, as it's ultimately a mobile addendum to a mobile addendum, which is still subservient to a desktop computer.
Also, it's been established that not that many people want an Android smartwatch (the sales figures are poor). I don't have and will probably never have any Apple products, so I'm not sure how that will ever make one indispensable for me.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I think that ultimately the technology will evolve to the point where these are very compellingly useful - most obviously once they don't need to be tethered. But where my (none too serious) comparison breaks down is that they will always be limited in their usefulness to certain contexts, no matter how powerful they get, in that the moment you want to see a photo or movie properly, or read a long document, you're going to prefer a bigger screen. This will never change, it's an inherent limitation in the size of the device, and actually gives some kind of google glass solution more legs in the long term, as it will (eventually) be able to create the appearance of an IMAX sized 3D movie in front of you when required.
But even in the short to medium term (say 5-10 years), an untethered Apple Watch 6 or whatever it is will be perfect for time off, when you just want to keep on top of any absolutely urgent messages and find where you're going, ask any question you may have in plain English to a powerful AI somewhere, pay for things and so on. Carrying a phone will VERY quickly start to feel cumbersome, something you do when you're working. I think it will happen because experience has shown that people are already happy to have something strapped to their wrist all day long, so long as it makes them look good as well as being useful.
That's my prediction anyway, and I guess it must be Apple's too. This is why I consider the current Apple Watch to be a kind of prototype, for those who want to have a taste of the future, even if currently there's an iPhone hidden somewhere doing all the real work and saying 'Don't look behind the curtain!' I'm certainly going to wait as long as possible, as I have a box full of traditional watches competing for the the wrist space. But there's no denying where this is going in the long run - even if traditional watches manage to hang on as a style statement, they will have ever stronger competition.
Last edited by Itsguy; 6th May 2015 at 11:29.
I agree, if we look at all of the first gen products Apple releases (iPod, iPhone, Macbook Air, iPad) they were always really only for the hard core fans before they really hit the mainstream.
I think there will always be a place for "normal" watches though, as they are also impeccably beautiful in their own right as jewellery which no gadget can replace.
There will always be a place but as jewelry the higher end smart watch will take a place along side it. Have a look at the Golden Apple already. It would perfectly fit in with the PP, Omega, Bulova in the 18K thread just as would the Pulsar and Synchronar. The latter, being ´ruby´ & gold, is an awesome piece of jewelry worth rubbing shoulders with the real ruby and gold LED gems literally fit for royalty.
...and the Grand Seiko? :)
I've survived 15 years without needing a Bluetooth headset, which we were all told would be fitted at birth right about now, and 5 years without a tablet. Actually I had a tablet briefly, one of the best ones available, but I found it unsatisfactory as it's almost useless for anything other than simple content consumption. My phone is a smartphone, and I have put a Kindle app on it, so I find some use for its big screen other than email (which I also had 15 years ago). I guess I'm not too good at being assimilated - sometimes I wonder how I manage !
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
My point is that without the phone it can still be desirable branded jewelry.
I was not aware there was a human right to draw stuff on your body that ought to be so protected.
The right to freedom of expression.
Which is not an unlimited right ofc.
you have the right to tattoo yourself should you feel this is the way you must express yourself but it does not place any positive obligations upon anyone else.
Its not an urban myth.
It doesn't work on tattooed wrists.
I tested this myself last night.
I don't mind. I don't want one, despite being an apple user.
Isn't it less the colour of the skin and more the ink in the skin that causes the problems?Think about it, the Apple watch only works on skin the same colour as a techno geek in Cupertino?
If that were the case, cries of "foul" from tattooed people would be the least of Apple's worries...
Even though a seventeen-grand watch would have the same brand as a three-hundred pound variant in aluminium? I thought it was long-established that you need brand segregation to reach class status - Tudor/Rolex, Honda/Acura, Mini/BMW and so on. Will someone who buys a $17,000 Gold iWatch be happy that the aluminium one, identical but for the material, is available free on contract with 5 gig a month?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
That is a good way of looking at things. Andy Grove (CEO of Intel) advised when looking at any potentially disruptive technology to apply a 10X factor ie imagine the later version 10x quicker, smaller, faster etc. and then decide if can ignore, monitor or consider as a real potential threat to your business.
It is all perception with prejudices inherent part of it; a Honda NSX was only a Honda like GS is only a Seiko yet the Mercedes star shines no less on limousines for also shining on Smart carts and Korean buses...
Posting Permissions