Apple Watch vs. the stupidwatches: No contest

11 years ago

“Apple made a strong case for how you can use its upcoming Apple Watch, and the device stacks up well against the competition,” Anick Jesdanun reports for The Associated Press. “Apple Watch is among the most expensive on the market… The cheapest Apple Watch is $349, and that’s designed for fitness enthusiasts. A stainless-steel version for everyday wear starts at $549. A luxury edition with 18-karat gold starts at $10,000 and can cost as much as $17,000.”

“Apple Watch also doesn’t have GPS for better distance tracking. Then again, GPS is rare in smartwatches [because GPS is massive battery hog – MDN Ed.]. Apple Watch will use your phone’s GPS to learn your running pattern and calibrate its built-in accelerometer for better tracking the next time you go for a run and leave your phone at home,” Jesdanun reports. “Apple is offering different sizes, colors, materials and bands, but all of the watches have rectangular faces. Motorola’s Moto 360 and LG’s G Watch R are among those with round faces. Apple has a good reason, though. Round faces are fine for graphical content, such as photos and maps, but they are inefficient for text.”

MacDailyNews Take: Actually, photos and maps are usually square, so a round face is entirely the wrong choice, which, of course, ought to be Lenovo’s motto for their Motorola brand.

Motorola. Entirely the wrong choice™.

Lucky Goldstar is an even bigger joke, if that’s even possible.

Jesdanun reports, “Apple Watch can do a lot — more than rival watches and probably more than you need it to do — so you’ll need to decide which features and apps you’ll find convenient. Ultimately, it comes down to how willing you are to pay for that convenience.”

Much more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As Mac is to Windows PC, as iPod is to portable media players, as iPhone is to so-called smartphones, as iPad is to tablets, Apple Watch is to so-called smartwatches. No contest.