Apple Watch Take It or Leave It

 

Photo (c) Apple

(Jennifer Abel @ ConsumerAffairs) Though the Apple Watch, Apple's first new product line since the iPad, won't be available to the public until April 24, a handful of tech writers and reporters have spent the past week previewing the upcoming new devices, and those reviews all came out today.

 

The results are an odd mix: pretty much everyone agrees the Apple Watch is an amazing new piece of technology, yet even the most enthusiastic reviews found a lot to complain about. (My personal cover-all-bases prediction: the Apple Watch will prove either a dazzling success for Apple, a colossal failure, or something in between. You heard it here first!)

The Watch combines many features of a wearable miniature iPhone, iPod and iPad combination, with some new technological features as well. For example, the underside of each watch is outfitted with what Apple calls a “Taptic Engine,” which lets the watch literally tap you on the wrist anytime it wants your attention.

The Apple Watch review in Bloomberg BusinessWeek actually kicks off with a description of the Taptic Engine in action:

I’m in a meeting with 14 people, in mid-sentence, when I feel a tap-tap-tap on my wrist. I stop talking, tilt my head, and whip my arm aggressively into view to see the source of the agitation. A second later, the small screen on my new Apple Watch beams to life with a very important message for me: Twitter has suggestions for people I should follow. A version of this happens dozens of times throughout the day—for messages, e-mails, activity achievements, tweets, and so much more. Wait a second. Isn’t the promise of the Apple Watch to help me stay in the moment, focused on the people around me and undisturbed by the mesmerizing void of my iPhone? So why do I suddenly feel so distracted?

Fashion statement

The Wall Street Journal concluded that the Apple Watch was more of a fashion statement than an actual useful gadget:

After over a week of living with Apple’s latest gadget on my wrist, I realized the company isn’t just selling some wrist-worn computer, it’s selling good looks and coolness, with some bonus computer features. Too many features that are too hard to find, if you ask me.

Re/Code.net's reviewer felt the opposite — it's pretty nifty having these techno-gadgets strapped to your wrist, but not very fashionable:

I’ve liked having access to iMessages, email and photos on my wrist. I didn’t resent the reminders to get up and move around after I’ve been sitting for too long. I even got used to accepting or rejecting phone calls from my wrist. … Apple Watch strives for high fashion, but it still looks like a techie watch. Even if you can easily swap out the basic, smooth plastic band for a more elegant one — the $149 leather band, the $149 Milanese loop or the $449 link bracelet — the face looks kind of like a miniature iPhone.

On the other hand, Re/Code feels that if you must wear a smartwatch solely as a fashion statement, the Apple Watch is probably your least-worst option:

… the face looks kind of like a miniature iPhone. With that said, I’ve worn my fair share of smartwatches and none are as good-looking as Apple Watch....

Quite smart

The New York Times agreed with the Wall Street Journal on two main issues: both think the watch is good-looking – theTimes said it “looks quite smart, with a selection of stylish leather and metallic bands that make for a sharp departure from most wearable devices” – and both think the device is plagued by typical first-gen technology issues.

Quoth the Times: “the Apple Watch works like a first-generation device, with all the limitations and flaws you’d expect of brand-new technology.”

And if you ask the Wall Street Journal writer if you should buy yourself a new Apple Watch, she'll tell you no:

[E]very time I gaze down to admire it, I start seeing how the next one will look better. You could say the same about many fashion objects, but watches should be timeless (ironically). Unlike the Cartier I got for college graduation, the original Apple Watch’s beauty will soon fade. Unless you opt for the cheapest $350 sport version, you should really wait for the future.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.K.'s Telegraph said pretty much the same thing, going on at length about the Watch's many neat and nifty features before concluding:

That’s not, however, to say that even Apple fans with £299 burning a hole in their pocket should rush out and buy this first generation Watch. It’s beautifully designed and frequently rather useful - but history suggests version two or three will be even better.

Even worse, at least according to the Times: unlike earlier Apple product lines, the Apple Watch could prove difficult for “tech novices” to use, at least at first:

unlike previous breakthrough Apple products, the Watch’s software requires a learning curve that may deter some people. There’s a good chance it will not work perfectly for most consumers right out of the box, because it is best after you fiddle with various software settings to personalize use. Indeed, to a degree unusual for a new Apple device, the Watch is not suited for tech novices. It is designed for people who are inundated with notifications coming in through their phones, and for those who care to think about, and want to try to manage, the way the digital world intrudes on their lives.

Of course, if you want to manage (or even limit) the way the digital world intrudes on your analog real life, altering notifications and other settings on those techno-gadgets you already have might be a better bet than buying a new techno-gadget, and is definitely less expensive.