[least]

I'm pretty skeptical that Apple has a decade-long lead on any of the other big players in the market. Any innovations that one company can make can be more quickly adopted than new innovations occur and there's nothing as far as software goes that Apple is uniquely positioned to create. The other factors mentioned such as silicon tech being years ahead of the competition is one that is hardly a factor for the smart watch category.

On the other hand this is always the case and Apple's been the best at creating a general consumer wearable that appeals to the masses. Its integration into the apple ecosystem is a big selling point and that's probably the biggest factor that is basically impossible for competitors to replicate.

On a tangential note, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the amount of work that Apple has put into its accessibility features. Assistive Touch on the apple watch will probably serve a remarkably small portion of the user base and perhaps costs more to develop than the return they'll ever see on it. Still, year after year Apple keeps advancing accessibility features in all of its products. This is definitely an area where big tech companies like Apple and Microsoft excel at.

[sQL_inject]

I'm have to sort of disagree, not a decade but easily half a decade lead. Source: I worked in this space years ago with what was, at the time, the leader in the space, and remember how many of my coworkers laughed at the Apple Watch unveil. Now Apple is the one laughing with a girthy, multibillion dollar schadenfreude.

Apple has leads in silicon and cross-platform integration which is inarguably led to a better user experience, extended battery life, and smaller form factor. Try piecing together an Airpods Pro grade product with 'off-the-shelf' parts and half the firmware engineers.

Apple has orders of magnitude greater scale through their supply chain, and a real clincher: technological mastery of material science; from CNC milled aluminum to tooling for high grade plastic resin, and can shoulder out competitors from even touching the raw material once they've even realized they need it.

Apple has solid brand cachet, which drives loyalty which drives revenue.

Apple has (last I checked) the highest revenue/sq. foot retail space in the world. Yes, the rest of retail is dying, but Apple controls the image, experience, support, and purchasing of all it's own products. Check out an Apple store on a Friday night in the Bay Area, it's incredible how packed they are.

Arguably the most difficult thing for competitors to copy is the culture of industrial design and UX prioritization backed by engineering. Every other major competitor in their spaces shamelessly copies the externals without the same cohesion and mastery of internals -- it's embarrassing frankly (checkout the Oppo 'Enco X' earbud site, it's a poorly made rip off of the Airpods site).

I don't own any Apple products, and I don't endorse their labor practices, but I respect their brand, products, and patience in releasing GOOD things at the right time. Consumers do too, judging by revenue.

Apple's weakness is now their precarious position in bed with China, which will take decades to undo.

[amelius]

> Apple's weakness is now their precarious position in bed with China, which will take decades to undo.

But this holds for the entire world economy.

[snowwrestler]

Kind of, but among the largest tech companies, Apple uniquely runs most of its revenue through the hardware category, and gets a lot of revenue from China.

Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook all use hardware from China, but most of their revenue comes through software interactions. Google does not officially even operate in China. Amazon has a limited corporate footprint in China.

I think it’s reasonable to say that Apple has higher risk related to China than many of its competitors.

[ac29]

> Google does not officially even operate in China

Google lists three offices in mainland China:

https://about.google/intl/ALL_us/locations/?region=asia-paci...

[scarface74]

What happens to their services if they can’t procure hardware?

[fomine3]

Services could be sold to existing customer with existing hardware at a moment.

[scarface74]

Because hardware never fails and needs to be replaced…

You do remember the disruption when the earthquake in Japan caused hard drive failures? Can you imagine what would happen if the entire supply chain gets disrupted?

[disgruntledphd2]

Both Google and Facebook have substantial proportions of their revenue from CN based advertisers.

[xwolfi]

It's also in bed with the US, a huge flaw for us in China.

I mean, there are dark forces at the top here, which probably will misuse any kind of dominant position, but it's not like the US has our best interests at heart either.

As for Apple, now they have to play nice with a 300+ M people direct market in the US + all the allies they can sort of bully into segregation against us, vs a 1.3bn (and trending down) direct market in China + very few allies who'd be rich enough to afford Apple products.

I wouldn't blame Apple for cutting itself in half to work with both side of this artificial competition both our rulers decided they should have to defend our respective precious "national security" (which I'd rather call national distraction but heh).

[orev]

I’m glad you highlighted the materials/manufacturing component, which I think is frequently overlooked by tech people (who mostly focus on the chips and software). Apple’s ability to build millions of devices with such precision and tight tolerances is really a huge accomplishment.

[mmmmmbop]

Just to clarify, Apple doesn't actually build any devices. They are built by Foxconn, mainly. It's still very impressing, of course.

[stingrae]

To be clear. Apple provides the designs, the build procedures, fixtures, and test stations. Foxconn provides the facilities and workers.

[scarface74]

And Apple spends billions a year to design and create the manufacturing equipment that Foxconn uses.

[alpaca128]

> Apple has (last I checked) the highest revenue/sq. foot retail space in the world

Does this also correctly count the area of all Apple partner stores? In some countries they sell Apple devices but don't operate a single store themselves.

[dhosek]

The revenue/sq foot ratio is based on the sales from those square feet, not the total revenue. They measure sales at each individual location for location revenues/sq foot and all locations for overall. Revenue from partner sales, internet orders, etc. are not counted in that (although they might include deliver to store website orders, I don't know). It doesn't hurt that they're selling products with a high price-volume ratio.

[scarface74]

> I don't own any Apple products, and I don't endorse their labor practices,

So which labor practices does Apple engage in that every other phone manufacturer doesn’t - using the same factories and supply chain?

[smoldesu]

> Apple has leads in silicon and cross-platform integration

I stopped reading after this part.

[user-the-name]

Both are simple, factual and true statements? Why does that make you stop reading?

[coldtea]

Bias

[user-the-name]

Towards truth, or?

[coldtea]

Bias "against X" (here: Apple).

Whether the fact is true or false makes no difference. The person with the bias will cherish both true and false statements if they are against X, and reject them if they are in favor of X.

[whynotminot]

> silicon tech being years ahead of the competition is one that is hardly a factor for the smart watch category.

What? This doesn't even make sense. This is by far the most important lead Apple has.

Their ability to put performant and efficient chips into tiny devices is why they have such a software edge. Other Android wearables suck because the underlying hardware is not able to power the experience without significant compromises.

It's not an accident that WatchOS is vastly better than competing Android offerings. It's hardware driving software possibilities.

[aphextron]

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware"

[GeorgeTirebiter]

what folks don't seem to grasp is that hardware is (conceptually) software, except it much harder to change...

And it works the other way, too, c.f. Lisp Machine.

And then there were mainframes B6700 had loadable microcode that 'swapped in' different instructions depending on the higher-level language being run: http://www.retrocomputingtasmania.com/home/projects/burrough...

[smoldesu]

I don't really agree. I've owned a Fossil Carlyle 5 smartwatch with WearOS and an Apple Watch 3, and Apple's lead is definitely on the software side of things. I actually really dislike the material build of the Apple watch. The screen is designed to expose as much of the surface area as possible to scuffs and scratches, while the body of the watch feels larger than any other smartwatch I've used. The Apple Watch got hotter than the Fossil, somehow, and the sensor bump is also much more pronounced.

Anyways, it's not like this is up for debate anyhow. Ask any analyst who's watched the industry for the last decade, they'll still tell you that Apple's advantage is in the software world. If iMessage and MacOS were available on other hardware, Apple would be selling two crazy handfuls of nothing to customers. The average consumer doesn't care if their laptop has faulty graphics, a keyboard failing en-masse or soldered storage. They just want the little blue bubble to pop up when they send a message from their computer. Recognizing that, Apple arguably makes more compromises than anyone else in the industry. Their concept of "iteration" really only involves bringing their product to the next most common denominator.

[whynotminot]

> I don't really agree. I've owned a Fossil Carlyle 5 smartwatch with WearOS and an Apple Watch 3, and Apple's lead is definitely on the software side of things.

I don't disagree that the lead is in software. I'm saying it's also in Hardware too. You're making comparisons to the Apple Watch 3--that came out more than three and a half years ago. It's not helping your point that you feel the hardware for your android watch is in the same ballpark as Apple's oldest supported piece.

> Ask any analyst who's watched the industry for the last decade, they'll still tell you that Apple's advantage is in the software world

Please don't willfully miss my point. I'm agreeing with you that Apple has a software advantage. I'm telling you the software advantage exists in no small part due to the hardware advantage. Apple's SoC prowess is a massive advantage.

>If iMessage and MacOS were available on other hardware, Apple would be selling two crazy handfuls of nothing to customers.

Are we talking about the watch or not?

>They just want the little blue bubble to pop up when they send a message from their computer.

Damnit. If you had started with this line I would have known to not bother reading more of your post.

[tinus_hn]

Note that iMessage only became a thing in the US ‘pay to receive SMS’ market. It’s mostly irrelevant in the rest of the world. Yet they have that same lead outside the US.

[smoldesu]

I mean, I did voice my gripes about the hardware of the Apple Watch in my comment. You can't expect me to be surprised/offended/owned when you've willfully ignored my argument too.

[coldtea]

>The screen is designed to expose as much of the surface area as possible to scuffs and scratches, while the body of the watch feels larger than any other smartwatch I've used. The Apple Watch got hotter than the Fossil, somehow, and the sensor bump is also much more pronounced.

None of those are about the build quality and even less about the hardware capabilities.

To me it sounds more about a "pea under the mattress" list of complains.

[Aaargh20318]

> Apple's lead is definitely on the software side of things.

It’s their lead in hardware that makes that software possible.

[smoldesu]

I mean, that's never been true. Hell, MacOS runs fine on pretty much any computer, as evidenced by the cakewalk that is the modern Hackintosh. In the Intel era, Macs consistently lost outright price-to-performance battles with equivalent PCs, and the same goes for the PowerPC era.

Instead of arguing with you though, I'll propose an amendment to your phrase: "Apple's lead in software makes their hardware profitable."

Does that contextualize things for you?

[whynotminot]

Why do you keep talking about macOS in an Apple Watch thread?

[smoldesu]

Because you expanded the scope to "Apple's software", which includes MacOS. You could have said "Apple Watch hardware drives WatchOS" if you wanted to talk about the Apple Watch, but it sounded to me like you were addressing Apple, not their watch.

[fomine3]

What I'm not satisfied is why Apple won't make their Watch to make battery life longer. It still just enough for a day even though they have most advanced technologies.

[nradov]

The high-resolution always-on OLED display is a major power drain. In order to get significantly longer battery life Apple would have to downgrade the display, or make the device thicker to fit a larger battery.

[nickbauman]

Agree on all counts. It's very hard to put time horizons on anything. But I started wearing a Series 3 watch (3 generations old now) when I started a project my client in 2019 insisted I wear it as I was writing code that utilized HealthKit data from the Apple Watch. Check my past posts I'm NOT an Apple fan boi at all. But compared to the competition, there's nothing coming close to the integration and the UX out there. My partner has a Rage 4 and it's just garbage in comparison. It misses and drops, the display is like from the dollar store. HealthKit is absolutely bulletproof. Every single decision in that API is gold. Every time I think something might be poorly done it's my misunderstanding or they made the best choice you can make. Deep respect.

[vbezhenar]

Apple Watch might be the best smartwatches but for me the concept or smartwatch is still novel and I'm not sure if I want to switch. I wear ordinary watches and they're good enough for me. The only killer feature that I need is waking me up in a smart way (monitoring sleep phases and boozing on my hand between 08:00 - 09:00, for example) but Apple Watch does not have that feature. Other features are just not interesting for me. And, honestly, for most other people around me. May be I'm in a bubble, but so far I saw Apple Watch only once in my life.

[scarface74]

The reasons for a cellular Apple Watch.

For myself:

- Running without my phone. I can still track my speed, make phone calls and listen to streaming music and podcasts. I can even leave my wallet at home and stop by a convenience store that accepts Apple Pay.

- During the Before Times when I went to the gym (I have a home gym now), I hated carrying my phone around. With my watch, I didn’t have too.

- Even now when I am working out at home, I keep my phone in another room and just have my watch on to measure my heart rate while I’m working out and even control my AppleTV. If I do get a call, I can answer it.

- I was horrible controlling my “screen time” and would pull my phone out when I was with other people. Now, anytime I am suppose to be socializing, I leave my phone in the car. I can still be contacted. I ignore all phone calls though except from my wife, kids, or parents.

My wife:

- women often wear clothes without pockets or shallow pockets. She will often leave her phone in the car and just walk around with her watch and her AirPods on a key chain.

- she has a working hobby as a fitness instructor. It’s online and outside these days. She has her iPhone connected to her sound system and uses her watch to control the music.

[yurishimo]

While I agree that the wake-up feature you described is not available from Apple directly, I bet there's a 3rd party app out there that does what you're asking.

I use the Apple alarm now and when if I go to sleep with my watch on, it will gently buzz on my wrist and get more forceful until I turn it off. The sensors to track sleep are all on the device, but Apple doesn't seem to have any interest in building a "sleep cycle" tracker at this time for whatever reason.

A cursory search turns up the "Sleep Cycle" app[0] with a ton of reviews and even an "Editors Choice" award. Maybe Apple is holding their horses until they 100% nail the implementation, but if you can live with 90% in the meantime, it would probably be worth it to you if this is a thing you're really wanting in your morning routine.

[0] - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/sleep-cycle-sleep-tracker/id32...

[mcny]

The only real complaint I have is 8GB is not enough storage to update watch os. But there is praise in the complaint: you can update it at all.

[d3nj4l]

On that note, it feels so un-apple like that their official way of resolving the storage issue with updates is to unpair the watch and pair it again.

[tinus_hn]

They have had instances like that with iPhone where the upgrade to iOS was a backup and restore cycle. It’s a long time ago though.

[scarface74]

That is horrible. I am glad I bought the 16GB cellular version. I would have bought it just for the extra storage even without cellular.

[solarkraft]

> On a tangential note, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the amount of work that Apple has put into its accessibility features. Assistive Touch on the apple watch will probably serve a remarkably small portion of the user base

On a similar note I’d like to point out that accessibility affects everyone. You don’t need to be disabled to enjoy accessibility. My eyes are fine, (I think), but I find the iPhone X’s lowest screen brightness too bright iOS’s blue filter to be barely effective, so I use a custom color filter (almost full red) and “Reduce white point” and am super happy it’s an option. People used and probably use assistive touch for things that don’t compensate a disability, but just add useful features. The back tap shortcuts are just a nice feature. The zoom is nice if you want to show something to someone a bit further away. I could go on.

As someone with perfectly fine hands I love this feature because one thing I hate about modern smart watches (RIP Pebble) is that you have to touch and inevitably smudge up the screen. Bam, problem single-handedly (what pun are you talking about?) solved. Massive kudos. The other, more obvious advantage is that your other hand stays free, of course.

> and perhaps costs more to develop than the return they'll ever see on it.

As you see, the user base for such features is bigger than you may think. Besides collecting some easy sympathy points for helping disadvantaged people, Apple also seems to be huge in the business of servicing small, but under-served and vocal minorities (where can someone who wants a modern, small phone go?), which will turn into strong advocates for their brand.

[dhosek]

When I showed the designers at a company I worked at a few years ago how to enable screen zoom, they found it an imminently useful tool. Once enabled, ctrl-scroll zooms in/out on the display which is very useful for being able to check pixel-level details on, say, an HTML render.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Apple has a significant lead in manufacturing, at the very least. I haven't been in the CE industry in several years, but when I was, they frequently bought out entire lines of new tooling equipment with exclusive multi-year contracts. They literally have some of the most advanced, bleeding-edge tooling in existence. It's very, very difficult to compete with their fabrication abilities.

Combined with their market position, huge margins, decent but good looking software and UX, it's incredibly hard to catch up to them.

Apple has a decade-long lead in wearables because there is no competition at their luxury price point in a luxury device ecosystem like the iPhone. To catch up, first you'd have to defeat the iPhone, meanwhile develop and then unleash a wearable all of your customers also want, and somehow make money doing so. It's a tall task.

[unparagoned]

I've got a Samsung watch and the the heart rate monitor has serious reliability issues. Apples is not only suppose the be better but you got blood pressure and o2 monitoring. I'm definitely going to switch over in the future

[hellbannedguy]

It gets weird as you age.

When I was younger, I wanted my vitals. I bought numerous BP machines. I even bought glucose meters. I wanted to know what my body was doing.

I wanted to know because I was young, and those numbers were always fine.

Now--I just don't want to know. You can call it denial, or life is too short to measure health stats all the time, especially on my wrist.

I'm also a Certified Hypochondriac. I've been one for ever. I don't anything on my wrist reminding me of my eventual death of cancer, or a heart attack.

Now--I get a physical every three to four years.

I don't want to know what my aging body is doing daily.

If I had diabetes though, the upcoming glucose monitor would be a no brainer. This will be huge.

I'm a Watchmaker, so my tastes might not be Apple's demographics? My perfect watch is something I can repair, and just tells time, and looks good on my wrist.

I will admit Apple square watches have grown on me. I didn't like them when introduced, but now they look fine.

Would I trade my '62 IWC with the 362 movement for any Apple watch; hell no.

[foobarian]

There have been some wearables coming on the market claiming to measure blood pressure. Family member got one. Unfortunately it turns out to be so inaccurate that it created more stress for them out of frequently seeing alarming numbers.

I wonder if blood pressure readout is one of those things like Theranos' assays from one drop of blood - not possible due to physics. It certainly is less obviously so.

[nielsbot]

No blood pressure

[voisin]

Rumoured in next one based on some acquisitions they did pre-pandemic.

[jiggawatts]

Most of the Apple Watch health features are blocked in Australia because they were literally too lazy to submit the paperwork to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)!

All a competitor has to do is submit their paperwork and they won't get any competition from Apple. Easy!

[chrisseaton]

Who's the mug in this situation? Apple, or the Australian people?

[threeseed]

ECG has been available in Australia for the last month.

Only health feature that isn't approved is O2 levels.

[jackvalentine]

o2 levels have been available in Aus since it was first in the phone.

[908B64B197]

> Most of the Apple Watch health features are blocked in Australia because they were literally too lazy to submit the paperwork to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)!

Why duplicate all the work done by the FDA? Just use their certificate. Save the taxpayer some money.

[Doctor_Fegg]

If you believe unthinkingly following American regulatory authorities is a good thing, I have a few hundred 737 Max planes to sell you.

[smoldesu]

Because the FDA doesn't really do any work in the first place.

[anoncake]

Because the FDA only certifies that a device meets American laws?

[DennisAleynikov]

I have been using the samsung line of watches since before apple watch was ever a thing, despite some heart rate variance the leadership in payments samsung commanded was and still is unparalleled.

people with apple pay carry a backup card, a samsung watch allows paying with magstripe emulation in case of legacy terminals. pre 2020 pandemic this was indespensible and there are still often inoperable nfc terminals and MST is a great backup.

I hate the elitism around the apple watch and its minor changes to standard health tracking wearable tech that has had normal LTE and other full phone functions from the get go... not to mention the ridiculous requirment that an iPad isnt enough to set up a watch, you need to buy into their phones.

[least]

When I first saw that feature of the Samsung watch I thought it was really awesome. I still do. But I also remember it being excluded from some of their watches? Is that not the case anymore?

[tinus_hn]

In other news, Apple devices are not compatible with obsolete standards. Magstripe is insecure and obsolete and in no way a backup for nfc payments. Skimming is a thing.

[DennisAleynikov]

what? skimming is a thing and MST is not an insecure solution on top of magstripe, since it generates temporary cards per every few transactions. It is a backup for a traditional card, not something meant to be similar to NFC since its just a legacy method of payment that is still accepted more places than nfc.

you could try to use one of those temporary numbers but whats the likelyhood it expires before malicious reuse?

[Mandatum]

The software side, they’re so far ahead it’s ridiculous. Google couldn’t put out a watch to match the generation 3 Apple Watch today. They probably couldn’t even do that in 2-3 years. Same goes for Microsoft’s and Amazon.

[efields]

Your last p contradicts the first. Part of what makes apple products so good is the software, the depth and complexity of things like Assistive Touch doesn’t happen in a few sprints.

Their software isn’t perfect, but it’s so thorough that it allows them to do levels of polish that competitors have a hard time catching up to.

[least]

Once a feature is shown off in the real world it usually doesn't take long to replicate its functionality to an acceptable level. This give Apple a lead in that respect, but not years of a lead.

[Fomite]

I'm skeptical anyone has a decade long lead on anything in the consumer electronics space.

[criddell]

When Tesla was starting up I was skeptical that they could overcome GM and Ford's century-long lead in car manufacturing.

[burnte]

The whole article is viewing things through some heavily tinted glasses.

1. Apple was early - Nope, Apple came late to the party, years after first movers were there.

2. Voice computing distraction - Again, nope. Amazon Echo devices and Google Home devices are HUGE. Headphones and earbugs come with Alexa and google Assistant integration. Apple tries with Siri but it's consistently far behind Amazon and Google there.

3. Wearables require design expertise. It’s not enough to just throw together some leftover smartphone components and ship wearables. -- Yet, that's what Apple did with the first gen of Apple watch. Gen 1 was also dead in three years. Gen 1 was a pilot project.

4. Ecosystem and technology advantage. - These are Apple advantages, but not ten year leads.

5. No price and feature umbrellas under Apple. - Well, there are a lot of people still wondering what utility they have aside from a few "health" measures. I personally don't care about my heartrate all day, nor my steps, or a bad idea of calories burned. I don't need to monitor my O2 levels, nor get instant EKGs. I personally stuggle to see the point of smart watches. Notifications? I can see them on the phone screen, it's just as easy for me to look at it. Music controls? If I'm in the car the controls are on my steering wheel. At home I just say "Alexa, stop" or whatever. When I have headphones/earbugs in? I can tap the button on my headphones just as easily as I can tap my watch. What else would I use it for?

There certain is a price umbrella, too, because you have to have an iPhone and be bought into that ecosystem.

[D13Fd]

I was with you until #5.

The Apple Watch is very useful. That’s why people keep buying it.

It’s nice to get notifications on your wrist if you don’t have your phone out 100% of the time. The alarms are silent and dead simple to set, and it can function as your wake up alarm in the morning, and sync with your phone as a backup alarm. It lets you unlock your phone while wearing a mask. It lets you pay for things instantly without taking your phone or wallet out.

If you are someone who exercises, the utility goes up even more. It’s great to control your podcast or music while out walking or running without digging around in your phone. It’s perfect for tracking your workouts, because it’s always on your arm and it tracks your heart rate.

I agree that the EKG & O2 level features are pretty much a gimmick. But the watch generally is an exceptional piece of technology.

[CharlesW]

> I agree that the EKG & O2 level features are pretty much a gimmick. But the watch generally is an exceptional piece of technology.

They are until they aren't, you know? https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-watch-lifesaving-health-feat...

[D13Fd]

None of those people were saved by the EKG or O2 features (other than that one person noticed a slow heartbeat while playing with the EKG feature). They are talking about the "fall detection feature, heart rate notifications, exercise tracking and even the ability to make a call from your wrist."

[malwarebytess]

You didn't read far enough.

The article includes a story on the watch detecting Atrial fibrillation. Presumably this used the EKG feature, since an EKG is the standard clinical tool for diagnosis of AFib.

[burnte]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying they have no use, I'm saying I can't find a use for them. I just want to be very clear I'm saying me personally and not others.

Wrist notifications are kinda nice, yes, but I almost never don't have my phone. I've also had one broken screen in 11 years of carrying Android phones, so I'm not the typical user. Always having it with me kills most of the utility of the watch for me, I think.

I also use finger unlock, because I'm Android. I don't use face unlock even though it's available because I think finger is far superior, to the point I won't buy a phone that doesn't have it. I skipped th ePixel 4 totally because of the lack of fingerprint. If the Pixel 6 has no fingerprint, then I'll skip that too.

[JohnTHaller]

> It lets you unlock your phone while wearing a mask.

I'm really glad I passed on the Pixel 4, mainly because I hated the concept of face unlock on a phone (slower and less reliable? sounds great!). And this was before the age of masks. I love having a fingerprint reader on the back. The phone is unlocked as it's coming out of my pocket. Google switched back with the 4a and 5 so I picked up a 4a 5G. It's a shame Apple won't stick a fingerprint reader on the back, too.

[dariusj18]

But aren't those features (notifications, alarms, exercise tools, music controls) in a bunch of other smart watches?

[D13Fd]

> But aren't those features (notifications, alarms, exercise tools, music controls) in a bunch of other smart watches?

Yes, definitely. I was replying to:

> I personally stuggle to see the point of smart watches.

I do think the Apple execution and hardware is generally better, but really I was just comparing the benefits of wearing a smart watch vs. not wearing one.

[lscotte]

It's unfortunate that the Apple cult has enough power on YC to downvoted anything that's not positive towards it. Sad that only pro-Apple opinions are allowed here.

[arcatech]

It’s more likely that the usual anti-Apple arguments that are used in these conversations just really aren’t very good.

[scarface74]

The hard part about copying Apple in wearables isn’t the software. It’s the hardware. Yes another company theoretically could make hardware that has the same performance/power efficiency as the S1 series in the Apple Watch. But, no other company is going to spend the money since they don’t think they will recoup it.

Just as most people who are willing to spend money on high end phones buy iPhones, the same is true for other wearables. Apple knows that it can recoup the up front costs of any research and development.

[lscotte]

I had an Android smartwatch years before Apple even came out with one. Typical Apple reality distortion field in effect.

[doublepg23]

I’ve had multiple wearOS watches and switched to the iOS platform in the last year. It’s frankly night and day, for the extra bulk in the wearOS watches you get worse battery life and dismal performance. A lot of the blame can be placed on Qualcomm’s back for not keeping pace with wearable processors. I’m wondering if Google’s Whitechapel and their cooperation with Samsung can improve this at all, but it’s currently a sad state of affairs. Dieter of The Verge and Linus of Linus Tech Tips have made all the same points scattered throughout this thread.

[lscotte]

Downvoted by the Apple cult, of course!