Reply With QuoteYes - but as a tool to allow you to tell the time it is inferior to every non-smart watch out there.Originally Posted by Huertecilla
Yes. I grabbed one of my 3 solar/atomic g shocks to go to the gym thus morning, and all 3 were perfectly in synch when I chose which one I'd take. Dropped it on the floor next to me whilst in the weights room (and I do mean dropped) then stuck it next to me in the sauna (the back gets too hot to keep it on) then into the shower. All because I don't trust gym lockers - but never had to worry about whether the watch would survive, g shocks are like cockroaches in that regard! Would the sport version of the apple watch have survived the same trip?
Yes - but as a tool to allow you to tell the time it is inferior to every non-smart watch out there.
Tim Cook wears his Apple watch in the shower. I normally do not risk any watch in the shower.
I agree completely, this has the feeling of a solution looking for a problem, and initially made me wonder if Apple had lost the plot post Steve Jobs. Then again, people said the same things about the iPad at first - 'But what's it for? I could just use my laptop / phone'. And the iPod too, or earlier the Sony Walkman, wasn't really solving a problem anyone realised they had, it just created a new possibility. In this case, what I think they are doing is laying the ground for the inevitable leap to an iWatch that works independently of a phone. That is something that really will be genuinely useful, and it will arrive due to years of refining this first version. At the moment, it seems like a bit of a gimmick, or a nice toy with borderline usefulness. But give it ten years, and in retrospect I think we'll see it differently.
I think everyone's missing the point with this item. It's tech masquerading as a watch. Selling it as a watch gives it a sales platform. If the wearer needed to tell the time, they'd look at their phone.
So it's not a watch but tech? What's this tech supposed to do?
Does it do anything that can't be done on the iphone6?
Tried strapping one of those to your wrist? Or do you think wristwatches a useless innovation as well?
Remember when the first crude personal computers hit the market??
Apart from a few tech blokes who just lóved the things nobody got the need for those either.
Oh dear, the Sony Walkman was an invention made by Sony and it created a marketplace and set a trend for portably media devices.
The iPod was made to promote the Apple iTunes store to sell music, the invention was the click wheel :)
The iPad was the first usable tablet because it had a dedicated operating system.
Apple didn't solve anything they are just good at simplifying and making things simple.
Yes, when it has its own cellular capability and native apps, it might morph into something very different. That needs a generational leap in battery tech, though.
That threshold is not halting e-cars either is it?!
Halting no, Limiting yes.
Same thing with the watch.
Ditto watches with other tech inside. Even the latest solid state ones have their limits and boy are those less limited that pre modern tech. ones.
Time and again it boil down to personal preferences and/or being a luddite or not.
I have no use for the extra functionality and can´t see that changing but I do think it looks VERY cool as a watch, way better than most. I would strap a 38mm in gold color with rugged tan band to mý wrist allright!
That was a bit terse, sorry; what I should have said is 'Let's indulge in some interesting speculation about how Apple Watch time sync works'. As far as I know there isn't any public information about it, but we can make educated guesses based on what we know about how time synchronisation in general is done over a network.I have no idea what you mean here - yes the watch will initially sync with your phone but afterwards you can go for a run, do whatever, and the time will be accurate. It will then resync using NTP whenever it has the opportunity. What do you mean by "just gets the time from your phone"? Every clock/watch/timepiece has to sync with another - how is this any different?
First of all, the Watch has no network connectivity of its own - it doesn't have space or battery juice for a cellular or Wi-Fi radio. Anything that requires contacting the outside world is done by talking to the paired iPhone over Bluetooth (short-range, ultra-low-power radio). The iPhone has several methods of syncing its own clock, so it makes sense that the Watch would simply show whatever time the iPhone thinks it is. No point duplicating all that machinery. So Apple's marketing claims about the Watch being one of the most accurate timepieces ever, are actually claims about the iPhone itself. Not unjustified, as we'll see.
Next, how does the iPhone know what time it is? It has its own internal clock, of course, as all computers do, but it isn't particularly accurate over long periods. A typical computer system clock might drift several seconds a day. So the iPhone, like your desktop computer, regularly checks its own drift against an external time source and corrects it.
Now, how do you do that? Let's imagine you have a clock which you want to synchronise. You have no idea whether your clock is currently showing anything approximating the right time, and you also have no idea how fast or slow the clock runs. You want to set it to the right time to start with, and also work out how much time it gains or loses a day.
Let's also assume I have an atomic clock, which is as good a time reference as anyone has. Let's imagine further that the only way we can communicate is via postcards, which are quite similar to packets on the Internet, though a little larger.
What you do is this: read the time on your clock, write it on a postcard, and send it to me. When I get your postcard, I write down the time on my own (definitive) clock and send it back to you, at which point you again read the time off your own clock. From the average difference in the two times, we have a pretty good idea of how long a postcard takes to send between the two of us. It doesn't matter how wrong your clock is; if we take the average of the two time differences, we know the elapsed time between me sending the postcard and you getting it. That tells you what the 'latency', or delay, is in our communication by postcard. (It takes me a certain 'processing' time to read the postcard and write you one back, but I can measure that and so we can allow for it.)
Now that we know it takes (for example) exactly 18 hours to send a postcard, all you have to do is look at the time I sent you and set your clock to 18 hours after that.
That gives you an initial time setting, but unless you have a perfect clock, your time will inevitably drift from the true value. If you keep sending me postcards and comparing our two clocks, taking into account the known round-trip time, you will soon get a good idea of your clock drift. Let's say it gains a second an hour. That is easily corrected; just set your clock backward one second every hour. We don't have to worry about a very precise correction, because if you're checking time with me once a day or so, your clock will never free-run for more than 24 hours. Postcards cost money, so it's not economic to send one every hour or every minute, but with a good figure for clock drift, that's not necessary.
If you're feeling a bit pessimistic, you might well say, "Well, hang on, it doesn't always take exactly the same time to send and receive a postcard." That's true: the latency is variable. One day the post office might be super-efficient and deliver the postcard in just 12 hours, and another day there might be a problem at the sorting depot and it might take 24 hours to arrive. If you're really unlucky, some of my cards might never make it to you at all. How can we allow for that?
This is fairly easy, as it turns out. You keep a record of the delays for every postcard you send, and once you have a decently large sample you can take the median delay as being representative (the median being the figure which splits your observations into two equal halves, so that 50% of trips were shorter than that time and 50% were longer). We can discard any outliers, observations which are too far from the median (statistically speaking, greater than one standard deviation), as being unrepresentative.
How well this trick works depends partly on the topology of the network (i.e. the postal system). If we both live close to major sorting offices like Mount Pleasant in London, the postal latency is likely to be both small and fairly consistent. If one or both of us lives on a remote Scottish island where mail delivery is done irregularly by a ferry or light aircraft, the latency might be both high and variable. Still, we do the best we can.
One way you can mitigate the problem of variable latency is to use more than one external time reference. For example, if you also exchanged postcards with two other friends as well as me, you would end up with three 'time correction' figures, and assuming the latencies are independent of each other, you can just drop the biggest outlier and take the average of what remains. If a friend in Ireland says your clock is one second fast, a friend in Scotland says it is one second slow, and I say it is four hours fast, you can reasonably assume that some anomaly has made that postcard take an unusual length of time to get to you, and ignore that particular figure. If you had lots of friends, effectively 'crowdsourcing' your time sync, you can identify a small group of the very 'best' sources and use only them, ignoring the rest.
This method works surprisingly well. Provided the postcard latency is long compared to the typical clock drift, and its variation is small compared to the latency, you can keep your clock pretty accurate.
The Network Time Protocol (NTP) works in a very similar way to what I've just described (only faster). Instead of postcards, you send Internet packets, but the calculations are the same. So how accurate is an NTP-synchronised clock? The answer is, it all depends - on your network connection, how many reference servers you have, what the network topology is between you and the servers, how reliable your ISP is, and so on. Over short and simple network links, NTP can maintain a sync of a few milliseconds. Over the public Internet, accuracy might be between 5 and 100ms. (Apple's claim of 50ms is well within this ballpark.)
So when we synchronise clocks via NTP, we can talk about our accuracy in terms of tens of milliseconds under good conditions, so that's what we should expect from the Apple Watch.
As a matter of engineering interest, is this the best we can do with current technology, short of having an atomic clock at home? Not at all. GPS provides a far more accurate source of time, because although the round-trip time to a satellite is comparable to the Internet latency (about 100ms) it varies hardly at all. The radio signals don't take multiple routes to get to you, they go in a straight line, and although variations in the density of the atmosphere can affect them, this variation is also quite predictable. So you have simultaneous access to several very good atomic clocks, with very stable communications links. In these circumstances an NTP-like algorithm can maintain sync to within tens of nanoseconds. Real-world consumer GPS receivers under imperfect reception conditions can probably manage tens of microseconds, which is still a thousand times better than Internet NTP. Those orders of magnitude, significant though they are to an engineer, obviously don't make a lot of difference in our daily lives, which is why Internet NTP is good enough for most purposes except things like physics experiments (and indeed, precise navigation. Because of the speed of light, a clock error of a few nanoseconds results in a ground position error of several metres.)
The iPhone has a GPS chipset; not a particularly high-end one, but perfectly good for navigation purposes. I don't know whether the iPhone uses the GPS signal to adjust its clock, but I think it's unlikely, because the GPS chipset draws a lot of power, and it only works outdoors. The two main sources of time sync for the iPhone are the cellular carrier's time signal, which comes from the cell towers and is based on GPS, and Internet NTP over Wi-Fi. It keeps good sync, but not outstanding; if you install an app like Emerald Time it will do its own NTP sync and show you the current offset of your iPhone's clock, which can be hundreds of milliseconds, depending on how long it is since you had a cell signal or Wi-Fi access. If you took your iPhone (and by extension, Apple Watch) on a long trip in the wilderness, after a week or two it would probably be many minutes off the true time.
Concluding questions: is the Apple Watch [which is to say, the iPhone] far more accurate than a mechanical timepiece? Of course, but not for interesting reasons; so is any quartz watch. Is it significantly more accurate than a cheap quartz watch? Yes, because it's regularly synced with a reference clock, though its clock drift will be similar to the cheap watch. Is it significantly more accurate than a high-end, thermocompensated quartz movement? Yes, because of the regular sync, and also because it is compensating better for drift. Is it significantly more accurate than a HEQ watch which syncs itself nightly from a radio time signal? I suspect it's probably comparable to that, possibly a little better, depending on how often the watch can sync with the phone, and how often the phone in turn can sync with the network.
TL;DR "it actually just gets the time from your phone".
We normally have two wrists, so wearing a smartwatch and a normal watch at the same time could well become the norm.
I'd question whether it "could become the norm" but I'd suggest it would be a sure fire way of lumping yourself within a demographic that many would not want to be labeled as... The same type of group who talk too loud in public on the mobile, spend social time glued to their phone and believe the world is interested in their social media updates.
As an aside, apparently the watch does have wifi capability, if it is on the same wifi network as the iPhone it doesn't need bluetooth, in practice this means you can maintain connection to the phone outside bluetooth range.
Ah, that's interesting, thanks! Does it have Internet access independent of the phone?
Yes, sure does. "If you put five Apple watches side-by-side you'll see all five Mickey Mouses animate and tap their feet exactly in synch. "
Awesome, for 18 hours at least.
A cool brand, eh ;). Premium, very expensive for miniature but fairly conventional technology, generating vast profits for the asset holders because of the premium brand value, made in massive margins by vast Chinese factories. All sounds familiar - but it's a cool brand that you likeHeck it is even cool branded!
....
telling time under a cool brand.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
It's apparently based on the 1933 Mickey Mouse Watch from Ingersoll (according to this) http://www.wired.com/2015/04/apple-watch-design/
Sounds VERY familiar indeed. No different than Swiss Made in China.A cool brand, eh ;). Premium, very expensive for miniature but fairly conventional technology, generating vast profits for the asset holders because of the premium brand value, made in massive margins by vast Chinese factories. All sounds familiar - but it's a cool brand that you like
One thing though; the observation I make is about Apple being considered a cool brand. Imo something that main stream is per definition not/no longer cool.
I like it and think I will probably end up getting one just to decide for myself.
I love mechanical watches, obviously and personally don't see this as threatening. I can see when it might be useful - when I'm sat in a 7 hour trustee meeting or out for my daily jog. I'm not sure on the feasibility of this but I can also see myself sharing one with the wife (can it pair to multiple phones/accounts?) and each of us using it when needed.
The amount of money lots on here, and I'm including myself in this category, spend on phones/computers/tablets/cars/hi-fi etc. (judging by SC) I'm pretty surprised at the negative reaction it's received. It's just another pieces of tech, buy it or don't.
The issue lies in the ´rationalizing´ of the irrational expense of Swiss luxury branded mass produced mech tech.
A new cool branded chéaper, functionally more advanced wristwatch makes the argument more difficult to uphold. Ergo; the Apple watch ´needs´ to be bashed so the mech tech can be appreciated.
The funny thing is that the whole excersize is ludicrous anyway because there ís no factual argument, nor any needed; it is about paying extra for prefering/appreciating the, any product.
No, that's your issue.
I say buy what you like, if you want quartz or digital tat, then buy it, if you don't then don't, no "rationalizing" required.
Eh? Functionally a watch that needs charging every day or so is not advanced enough to be worthwhile IMO, and all this 'apple is a cool brand' stuff is dependent on who you talk to. My teenage son and his friends think iphones are stuck in a rut, suitable for their mums as they can't work anything more complex, all his mates have Samsung's and think my HTC is cool! - and I'm sorry, but in a year this batch will all be in a box in the loft or sat on a shelf, obsolete and unloved with dead batteries, whilst the Rolex, Omega, Vostoks and even Casios and other 'solid state' watches will still be on wrists telling the time. Sure they're a cool idea - but not yet practical enough to surpass the 'I've got a few hundred quid to spend on a gadget what shall I get' early adopting crowd!
How long do they take to charge ?
Apple? they charge like the Gordon Highlanders
I have a specialized GPS time receiver (Trimble) I use as a stratum 1 for NTP. I did a bit of work to see how well I could get it to work, e.g., minimize jitter. One main problem is getting the information out in a usable form. In addition to conditioning the power source, I had to have thermal sensors to register temperature changes in the crystal I was trying to discipline with the GPS signal, and to compensate for them. The best I could get it over reasonable period of time was about 75 nanoseconds, with stretches in the 15 nanosecond range. Much trickier, I suspect, on a moving device close to someone's body, with a crummy antenna.
As an aside. One might be surprised at the variation and jitter of ntp sources.
Best wishes,
Bob
This is neat; it's something I'd never have thought of, but I bet some people love it. You can set the Watch fast (it doesn't really change the time, just what the clock face shows):
http://www.imore.com/28-apple-watch-...ou-should-know
Very interesting, have you done a write up?
Some.
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...g-%28I-hope%29
Best wishes,
Bob
Really? Then I guess mobile phones aren't advanced enough to be worthwhile either! Never mind hand wound mechanical watches... If the charge doesn't last through the day then that would be a problem, but plugging in and recharging a phone / watch when you go to bed is a non-issue for me, presumably the charger will be on the bedside table when you take it off, what's the issue?
My thoughts exactly!
This is neat; it's something I'd never have thought of, but I bet some people love it. You can set the Watch fast (it doesn't really change the time, just what the clock face shows):
http://www.imore.com/28-apple-watch-...ou-should-know
I've never understood why people knowingly set clocks and watches fast ... Seems moronic to me.
That is because it is moronic.
Is having to charge once a day any more arduous than winding a manual watch? I appreciate that some enjoy the connection that daily manual winding gives but I'm sure there are others who don't share that view. At least not every day.
I really don't see the hardship in charging it every night, I don't sleep with a watch on anyway and sitting it on the charger is no effort at all.
One needs more equipment to recharge a watch than to wind one.
Best wishes,
Bob
True. It's hard(er) to get your apple watch going while standing at the station than it is to wind up your manual. I'm sure there will be portable charging solutions along shortly but as you say - more equipment.
It is when you're nowhere near a charger (18 hours is the typical battery life; in practice people won't be able to stop fiddling with it and it'll last considerably less). A manual watch requires nothing more than working fingers to charge up, and an automatic needs nothing at all!
It's not just smartwatches, it's mobile technology in general. For those who started using mobile phones when they first came out, and cursed the useless battery life that barely allowed a full day, the early 2000s brought phones with run times you could really rely on. That element appears to gone in reverse, although that's partly to do with the extra stuff that phones have and do. If you've never had that experience, then the cliché "you don't know what you're missing" applies ;).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
The issue is not the product nor the properties but the image as perceived by a great many.
The photo series in the opening post of the one covering the 38mm Apple watch is só telling.
The traditionalists slagging the Apple watch are só belying their claims that they buy their Swiss luxury mech tech for themsleves only. It that were true why would they spend more than a fleeting thought about it all?
I think it a wonderfull extension of the choise pallet and it wíll affect horology which Í think is great as it certainly needs an impulse. This promise of change is probably the underlying motivation for the agression.
My mind is changing all the time on this. Sometimes, I covet an Apple watch; other times I definitely don't want one.
My biggest worry when I am leaning towards the Apple Watch is that it will NECESSARILY take over from all my other watches. The only way it can really work for you is if you wear it all the time. All that fitness and movement monitoring...
I don't want a watch that makes all my other watched redundant.
Maybe it could fit around the ankle!
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...6WFzDGl8LUnPYM
This could become the new way we check our messages...
Ask yourself this question, does it have any features over that of your current phone? if no why do you need to part with cash you don't need to spend.
It's a new toy, if you want a new toy buy it, but I look at it and think is there an instance were I would choose to wear this over anything in my current collection, and the answer is a flat no.
I dabbled with a smartwatch in the form of a U-Watch.
OK, I admit the quality and probably functionality is far higher on the Apple, but the novelty wore off very quickly and the U-Watch hasn't been out of the box more than a couple of times.
Will I be spending 800-1500 on an Apple version? What do you think?
I am quite tempted to one of the fitband thingies though.
M.
If you want to see what they look like inside, ifixit have taken theirs apart so you don't have to - https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Appl...Teardown/40655
another item to charge, suited to those whose phone lives in the depths of a handbag “black hole” IMHO. Plus it looks too feminine - sorry a hairdresser's watch to match their Fiat 500’s….
Last edited by 2kilo; 27th April 2015 at 10:21.
I disagree with most of that I'm afraid.
Music on the move with a Walkman was a brilliant invention. I remember as a kid having a portable radio the size of a brick that had one earphone with it, and when the Walkman came out I must have used it everyday. It wasn't perfect of course, but it solved a problem that existed - before the Walkman people couldn't listen to music of their choice on the bus or train etc like they could in their cars. Then the MP3 player came along and did essentially the same, but made it smaller, with far more capacity and no need for buying batteries etc. The iPhone was a brilliant invention because it provided everything in one well-designed bundle - phone, access to email, games, videos and internet. I love Apple products in the main (although iTunes is dreadful and gets worse with every release) but I'm struggling to see the point of the watch, and I can't see really see how that will change over the next few years. Having their own simcard might be a start, but how are they ever going to replace a phone which needs to be held up to your ear for conversations. I have a phone for texts and emails on the go, and of course phones calls. Having those on my wrist, which would still require the presence of a connected phone seems pointless.
I was tempted by one of these, but then I thought it would get worn in circulation with my other watches, and really a smart watch is only going to benefit you if you wear it all the time...
I could be wrong, and I might try and pick a used one up at some point to test it out.
Posting Permissions
