Jesus, if we’re chasing bigger screens on watches, we’re thinking about them all wrong.
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
30 points (76.8% liked)
Technology
59207 readers
2520 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're right, especially regarding the iPhone.
But the watch still has a pretty good bezel around the screen. Since you don't have to hold it with your hand, it makes sense to make that bezel as thin as possible (or disappear entirely). The screen would get marginally bigger, but the watch itself would stay the same size.
At least, I hope that's the case.
That isn’t what they’re doing—it says in the article that the measurements are of case height, not screen size within the case. The body of the watch is bigger.
Well then I hope Apple Watch wearers all secretly covet the giant, round Google watch from ten years ago.
Honestly, they had me for the 1st gen, and then progressively convinced me that I don’t need one as they made it more of a phone.
I'd like an open source watch that looks nice and has long battery. I think it could be useful to manage whatever the hell is wrong with my brain that I cannot stay focused on a task.
I agree, but it needs a solid philosophy of use behind it so if doesn’t capture all of your attention the same way a phone does.
Yeah, I don't think taking all my notifications and moving them to a smaller screen is the solution. That's really compelling for sports, but I'm not doing anything away from my phone for long enough to need that.
It will happen. Same shit happened with phones.
The phone made sense up to a point—it has become more like a miniature book, and the changing form has reflected that.
The entire point of the watch is to free yourself from the screen of the phone for basic tasks. If the function of the watch hinges on the screen, then the phone is the better tool for that.
There was a time when Apple understood how the different parts of their ecosystem existed in their own lanes. Tim Cook has not seemed to grasp that one of their greatest strengths was that their devices weren’t designed to do absolutely everything, but rather a few targeted things very well.
I initially read that headline as “Butt Health Features in Trouble.”
I’ve been watching Ze Frank for too long.
All I really want is for it to be thinner and run longer. Seriously, it does everything I’d ever need in a watch except for being thick as hell and needing charging once a day.
I think more health tracking features are something that people genuinely want, and battery life on newer models is sufficient. Being a bit thinner would be nice but the current models certainly aren’t bulky.
Doesn't look great:
-
No progress with health features, which seem like the most exciting evolution.
-
Who truly needs the larger screen and faster chip. Especially the former will presumably reduce battery life, something that very much matters with watches.
The company is also working on a new version of its lower-cost Apple Watch SE model, which it last updated in 2022. One idea the company has tested is swapping the aluminium shell for rigid plastic. It's likely to lower the cost to something that could better rival Samsung's cheapest watch, the $199 Galaxy Watch FE. The SE currently starts at $249.
That really doesn't sound like Apple.
Apple wants the next generation. Kids love their watches. Parents don't want to spend $500+ on a kids watch.
Is that actually the case? I was under the impression that at least under US teenagers the iPhone usage was insanely high. And those are far from cheap, so at least there parents seem fine in spending big.
Also the cited article mentions $250 for the se watch vs $200 for the Samsung (although I guess that one might have bigger discounts). $50 difference doesn't seem large for the "Apple tax".
To me the plastic part would just seem like a risky gamble. Apple has the premium image and it might cheapen it. Especially on a device that is constantly visible, has skin contact and isn't used with any case.
$250 is just for the SE. That’s the closest Apple has to a budget line, and typically has hardware a few years old. The main line is the series 9 which starts at $400, and the ultra 2 which starts at $800. Most people I know with Apple Watches have either the series line or the ultra line.