The Apple Watch Review
by Joshua Ho & Brandon Chester on July 20, 2015 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Wearables
- Apple
- Mobile
- Apple Watch
Prior to the launch of the Apple Watch, there had been rumors that Apple would make a watch for quite some time. In a broader sense, the wearables industry has become an area of significant interest as the next growth market after devices like tablets and smartphones as the high-end market became saturated and much of the growth that previously existed in the mobile space started to level out. This has resulted in a new alignment of markets and technology; the markets are ripe for a new device to recapture the wild growth of smartphones, and in the 8 years since the launch of the iPhone the inexorable march of Moore's Law has seen another 4 generations of improvements in technology. This time is finally right, it seems, to take a crack at something even smaller and more personal than the smartphone: the watch.
About two years ago, we put out our first wearable review, which examined Samsung’s Galaxy Gear. In the time since then, Android Wear has been launched, with numerous OEMs launching some form of wearable using Google’s wearable OS. However, Apple remained curiously absent from the field despite numerous rumors suggesting that Apple would soon launch a wearable. Last year, Apple announced the Apple Watch, but it wasn’t until just a few months ago that it finally went on sale.
Consequently, Apple didn’t get a first-movers advantage getting into wearables, though it remains to be seen whether that would even matter. As the creator of the iPhone and frequently on the cutting edge of technology and design, Apple had enough good will with the public to be late, and at the same time with all eyes on them they could not afford to screw up. The end result is that though by no means a slight towards Apple’s competitors, there is a clear distinction between everything that has come before the Apple Watch and everything that will come after. For the consumer market as a whole, the launch of the Apple Watch signifies that wearables have moved beyond the early adopter phase for techies, and are now being pitched at (and purchased by) the wider consumer market.
Normally, it’s easy enough to jump straight into what the device is and what’s new about said device, but in the case of the Apple Watch it’s really important that we explore the world in which this watch exists. The world is divided into people that wear watches, and people that don’t. Apple faces the distinct problem is trying to sell to both audiences, which have very different desires from a watch. The people that already have watches don’t want to give up the almost infinite battery life of conventional watches, high levels of water resistance, or anything else that is an accepted standard for watches.
The people that don’t wear watches are probably the closest thing to a clean slate that we’ll get when it comes to the wearable market. On a personal note, I fall into this camp, as I pretty much grew up in the age of widespread cellphone adoption. One of the convenient things about a phone is that they usually have the time on them, along with alarm and timer functionality. For me, this effectively meant that there was no point to wearing a watch. I also tended to have problems with the logistics involved in wearing a watch. In general, wristbands had an amazing tendency to either be too tight or too loose no matter how I adjusted the band. These issues were also compounded with any sort of physical exertion, as sweat tended to collect under the band which made wearing a watch noticeably more uncomfortable. These ergonomic issues, combined with the lack of functionality in a watch, ultimately made me stop wearing watches. Even before cellphones, wall-mounted clocks were more than sufficient for me when it came to checking the time, although I suspect I was far too young for time to really matter all that much.
Of course, I have been trying out various wearables over the course of the past few years. Although I didn’t try LG’s G Watch, I have been able to use the Pebble Steel and Motorola’s Moto 360. However, it was really a challenge for me to find anything to say about these wearables. They could definitely tell the time, and they had some extra functionality, but many of the same problems remained. The wearables I tested just weren’t all that comfortable to wear, and due to some technology limitations both weren’t really all that compelling to use. They could manage notifications, but other than that I found the functionality to be rather lacking. I often would forget to put them on at all before setting out for the day, and when I did I didn’t feel any particular need to go back to put it on my wrist. After a few months, I completely forgot about these wearables and stopped wearing them. At the time, I honestly felt like wearables could end up being another passing fad because it seemed most wearables faced similar barriers in terms of getting people to keep wearing them. Wearables like Fitbit suffered from a pretty significant abandonment rate, and given that I did the same for both the Pebble Steel and Moto 360 it increasingly felt like this would be a persistent problem.
In this context, it seems easy for Apple to fail. Generally speaking, no one has really figured out how to solve the problem of wearable adoption, chiefly because the functionality offered often wasn’t very compelling, and broadly speaking these wearables were often not well-designed. One of the first places we can start with the Apple Watch is the spec sheet. We can speak in empty platitudes about how specs don’t matter, but in the case of something like Apple Watch they definitely will. The right components won’t ensure success, but the wrong components can ensure a poor user experience.
| Apple Watch 38mm | Apple Watch 42mm | |
| SoC | Apple S1 520MHz CPU | Apple S1 520MHz CPU |
| RAM/NAND | 512MB LPDDR3(?) 8GB NAND |
512MB LPDDR3(?) 8GB NAND |
| Display | 1.32” 272x340 LG POLED | 1.5” 312x390 LG POLED |
| Dimensions | 38.6 x 33.3 x 10.5mm, 25/40/55/54 grams (Sport/Watch/Gold/Rose Gold) |
42 x 35.9 x 10.5mm, 30/50/69/67 grams (Sport/Watch/Gold/Rose Gold) |
| Battery | 205 mAh (0.78 Whr) | 246 mAh (0.93 Whr) |
| OS | WatchOS 1 | WatchOS 1 |
| Connectivity | 802.11/b/g/n + BT 4.0, NFC | 802.11/b/g/n + BT 4.0, NFC |
| Price | $349/549/10,000 (Sport/Watch/Edition) | $399/599/12,000 (Sport/Watch/Edition) |
As we can see, Apple has elected for some relatively conservative specifications. The SoC is relatively low power in nature, and the amount of RAM is probably about right for the kinds of tasks that a wearable will be used for at this time. The display is also of a decent resolution given the display size, and all the necessary wireless connectivity is present. It is notable that Apple is using a relatively small battery, but I suspect that this is necessary in order to fit all of the hardware into the casing of the watch. At least at a high level, it looks like Apple has put the right components into this wearable. However, it's going to take a deep examination of both technology and design to really figure out if Apple has avoided the pitfalls that I've discussed. One of the first and most obvious places to go first is the industrial and material design, which is what we'll talk about next.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
270 Comments
View All Comments
relentlessfocus - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
I bought my AppleWatch out of curiosity though I was dubious about functionality, unenthusiastic about the physical design and unsure if I'd find it comfortable to wear as I hadn't worn a watch in decades and since getting a smartphone I saw no particular need to wear a device for telling time. I bought a space grey sport and bought a green plastic band.Almost immediately I liked wearing the watch as a fashion item. YMMV but once I was wearing it I liked how it looked. As I work out a lot on a rowing machine I hoped the heart rate monitor could replace my Polar HRM. To an extent it has. When comparing the read outs from both in a steady state situation my readings are within 1-2 bpm. The watch does take 15 seconds or so to get a reading while the Polar Band seems instantaneous. The band of the AppleWatch has to be worn tighter than normal to get a good reading. Occasionally the AppleWatch gives a totally false reading for awhile then jumps back to accurate readings. Calorie burn comes out almost identical to Concept2 readings plugged into their calorie counter.
ApplePay has just come to the UK and I'm eager to try that out when my bank joins at the end of the month. Some of the inbuilt functionality does minimise friction of my use of my iPhone reducing the number of times I have to pull my phone out of my pocket. Agree that's a first world problem but I do live a first world hectic lifestyle.
Despite the rant of JJJ below I like my watch and I'm happy I bought it. I don't think it's a must buy for most people, it's a convenience at the moment not a necessity. I do think that wearables have a strong future. Biometric sensors are bound to become more sophisticated, GPS receivers smaller, and a range of use cases unimagined today likely to arise.
mrdude - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
"Although we don't have an objective battery life test, the Apple Watch never failed to last a full day, and charge time is acceptable although nowhere as fast as something with wired fast charging. This sounds like a relatively short comment, and it's because I sincerely never worried about battery life. Range anxiety just isn't a problem like it is on smartphones."That's precisely why this is a very poor watch -- and even smart watch, for that matter. Battery life should be roughly a week and not a single day.
Up until a year ago, I never wore a watch. Now I can't go without it. I left the house without it on once and felt like I wasn't wearing any underpants. The only reason I began wearing one was due to work, and more succinctly because I couldn't pull out my cell phone whenever I felt like (hospital setting). A smart watch would be perfect for me, as I could potentially use it as a regular watch, and also access/read messages beaming from my phone... except 'dat battery. The apple watch turns off the display *way* too quickly and still suffers from very poor battery life. Further, as an independent device it's practically useless.
I really dislike this review. It's not so much that the technical aspects aren't discussed, and done so well, it's just that the practicality is practically ignored. And that ultimately is why this is a pointless device. My use case isn't a corner case either but rather the epitome of a perfect scenario for this device: a phone-away-from-phone that could offer a "smart" device while still maintaining the practicality of a watch. This isn't it. It does neither. And for other use cases, one can make the argument of why not just use your phone in the first place?
Kjella - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
With no offense, I find your expectations unrealistic. If you want a smartphone strapped to your wrist - particularly one lasting a week as few phones do - it's going to have the weight and volume too. I actually expected it to be more like a smartphone wrist accessory like a bluetooth headset, not less. If they want this to work better, they should do more to make the smartphone the "cell tower" and the watch the "cell phone" part of the relationship as another 50g in my pocket would be fine if I need to drag it out less. Maybe have less ambition about performance and concentrate on simple 2D graphics for notifications at a lower cost. But in the end, their primary customers are those who are saying "Watch? WTF do I need a watch for, that's so 20th century." Because it's going to be a sucky "normal" watch even if they do all that and more.mrdude - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
I don't want a smartphone strapped to my wrist. It's a watch first, and should therefore handle being a watch first and foremost with no troubles. The additional functionality should come without compromising the fact that this is a watch. The Apple Watch doesn't do that, and I fear it's going to be more than a single generation to get there.Kjella, this is a separate device from your phone. It should add functionality while still being a watch. This doesn't do 'watch' well at all. In fact, it's a horrendous watch. It's stylish, and it can fetch messages from your phone, sure. But it lacks the ease of use and the battery life is horrendous. It doesn't need to last a month, but roughly a week and shouldn't require a dumb hand motion or click of a button to do its main job. Remember: it's a watch.
PeteoBos - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Rember is a SMART watch. If I wanted just a watch i could buy a $2 watch. I get filtered notifications on my wrist. I want to seen when the next bus is coming before heading to the bus stop. I want to see where I am on a topo map while kayaking or hiking with my phone in a safe place. I want track my workouts, my heart rate, how many calories i'm burning. I want to be able to quickly reply to a Txt I actually see on my watch and not miss it because i never feel my phone vibrate in my pocket. I want to be-able to pick up a phone call from my wife when I am in my house and do not have the phone next to be because I'm paying attention to my daughter instead of staring at a Dam phone screen all day.mrdude - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Just don't expect to do that throughout the day and then also tell the time on the way home, because it'll be dead. And during your daily routine, the "watch" will tell you the time provided you only need to look at it for a fraction of a second.See the problem? Watch first, then the rest. Instead, Apple did a smartphone accessory under the guise of being a watch.
ingwe - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Kind of agree. The thing is that there are a lot of tradeoffs to make when designing something this small. The less "smart" it is, the less you can charge for it. The more "smart" it is, the harder it is to achieve any kind of reasonable battery life. I think they picked a point on the smart vs battery life curve that I am not interested in, but I that doesn't mean it is a wrong choice. It just isn't what I want. Especially not at that price tag, but that is kind of a separate issue to me.I should probably note that I am including screen capabilities in my definition of smart.
liuping - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
A Fraction of the second? have you actually used the watch?When looking you tilt the watch to check the time, the screen stays on for 7 seconds before the screen turns off. 7 seconds is long enough for me to read the time, check my next appointment and see if any notifications have arrived. If I need more time I can touch the screen.
Also, I use my Apple watch all day and have not had any issue with the battery. It's has always over 40% at the end of the day when I place it in the charger.
PeteoBos - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
do you own one? I think not. I do those all the time and it easily lasts a day. An ifs a GREAT Watch. its fine if you dont "like" it or think its practical, but i get allot of real world use out of it and love it. just like the anand reviewer.Daniel Egger - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
Sounds like you should get a Pebble Steel.