Talk:Apple Watch/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

History of Apple wrist devices and competition

This should have a history section about developments leading up to the device, such as the iPod Nano 6 + writstband, and likely competition at introduction such as the Pebble and Samsung -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Apple iWatch

Apple iWatch should redirect here. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's redirecting now. Markᵂ (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Siri an input method?

Siri is stated as an input method. Siri uses microphone input, Siri is software. I checked by the iPhone's input listing, and sure enough Siri isn't listed.aps (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Features

As well as traditional timekeeping, Apple Watch will allow wearers to make contactless payments with Apple Pay, a mobile payment service introduced at the same event as the Watch. The Apple Watch is capable of receiving phone calls as well as iMessage and SMS Texts. It can track fitness, run third-party apps built using WatchKit, Apple's new API for Apple Watch software development, control the Apple TV, as well as act as a walkie-talkie and a viewfinder and remote shutter-release for an iPhone camera.[1]

Design

Apple Watch will be available in a number of customisable design configurations, across three distinct 'collections', in two sizes (38 mm and 42 mm), making 34 individual models. Considering the number of physical models, and the wide variety of digital watch faces available on each model, the potential to personalise Apple Watch is considerable. Apple's head of design Jony Ive stated in an interview after Apple Watch was announced that the total possible number of unique designs is 'in the millions', although it is as yet unclear whether this is an exaggeration.

Apple Watch also features a new, pressure-sensitive touchscreen that can distinguish between a tap and a press, and features a dial called a digital crown, which can be turned to scroll or zoom and pressed to return to the home screen, allowing the user to interact with content on the display without obscuring it with their fingers. It also features a 'Taptic Engine'; a linear actuator which provides haptic feedback to users when they interact with the watch, or when they receive notifications, as well as allowing them to share physical 'taps' with other Apple Watch users.

The watch is charged by means of inductive charging, using a cable similar to the MagSafe cable for Apple's MacBook family of laptops.[2] Reports also suggest that the retail box for the 'Edition' series of the Apple Watch will act as a combined charging and display stand.

12.23.74.29 (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Verge: The 15 most important announcements from the Apple Watch, iPhone 6 event". The Verge. Vox Media. September 9, 2014. Retrieved September 10, 2014.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference theverge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  LeoFrank  Talk 09:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Lacking neutrality

In its current state, the article is lacking neutrality as it is written purely from Apple's perspective. I call this advertising. --84.226.185.33 (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a brand new, unreleased product. It's reasonable to assume that most of the relevant information will be from Apple. Dmarquard (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
So what? It doesn't change the fact that it's advertising. --84.226.185.33 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Would including criticisms of the Apple Watch reflect a NPOV? If so, add them. Dmarquard (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is providing the only information that is available for now. Android fanboy vandalism? Jessejarvi (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────Apple fanboy escapism? There are enough media reports (appraisals, criticism) available now to write a well-balanced article. --84.227.228.173 (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How is this advertising while all it states it factual information? I motion the NPOV tag be removed. --Travis Thurston (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I support the motion the Tag be removed. For it to be promotional there needs to be language that borders on PUFFERY, which there isn't. The article mainly covers TECH Specs as unveiled at its launch. If the unsigned user feels there isn't neutrality he should add criticisms of the watch by the press that viewed it. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I am against removing the tag. If users (unsigned or signed) don't bother to expand the article so that it presents an unbiased view, it continues to lack neutrality. So far, the article is written solely from Apple's perspective. It even raises suspicion that this might be a case of paid editing. --Voyager (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyone is free to expand the article, and it certainly would be improved by the addition of third-party sources, but the tone and presentation of information are fine, so the current tags do not convey any relevant information to readers. Warning tags are intended to raise addressable issues, none of which have been mentioned here. I'm zapping it, and let's see this article develop. WWB (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────The problems wont't go away by simply removing templates or denying facts. If you care so much for this article then improve it accordingly. --84.226.160.179 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As WWB said, the tags should be removed—the article currently does not present an unbiased view or lack neutrality in any way. Please feel free to contribute to it if you have found legitimate sources that present alternative viewpoints, though. Additional third-party sources would be especially relevant. ~zziccardi (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The IP editor whose address begins 84.226 added the templates back, but has not raised specific concerns here. I have removed them once more. Pretty sure I'm on the right side of BRD here, but I'm very sure this is not how warning tags are meant to be used. WWB (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is written like an advertisement, therefore it is an advertisement. Instead of repeatedly removing perfectly appropriate templates with dubious justifications, you should better start trying to improve the article so that it presents an unbiaded view. This is starting to get ridiculous. --89.217.4.69 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've replaced the templates again twice without identifying specific concerns. Simply stating that it is "written like an advertisement" does not make it so (please have a look at WP:NOTADVERTISING). I'm right up against 3RR so I won't be reverting at this time, but I would encourage Zziccardi or JamieBrown2011 or someone else to weigh in. WWB (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────You just dont' get it, do you? The German wikipedia actually solved this problem quite cleverly: After their article was rightfully tagged with a POV template, the authors didn't do childish reverting. Instead they added positive and negative reactions from tech bloggers and mainstream media. So why isn't this possible here? --89.217.4.69 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to add a section that describes positive and negative reactions that is properly sourced, you are more than welcome to try your hand at it. However, the non-inclusion of such a section is not the same thing as the article being unbalanced. In addition, the product is months away from release, so I would prefer to wait until actual reviews begin to appear. WWB (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If there weren't tons of reviews around since the presentation this week (haven't you noticed the media frenzy?), why should I continue insisting? You don't even have to wait "months". --89.217.4.69 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, feel free to constructively contribute to the article, rather than continually re-adding the templates at hand to the article. If you have found external sources that may be of use in improving the balance of the article, you may add them here. I—and I'm sure several other contributors—would be happy to evaluate whether additional points of view may be better represented in the article. ~zziccardi (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is it up to me to add missing information? Shouldn't this be done by someone more knowledgeable? You, for example? I am just pointing to a serious imbalance in this article. Call me a "bearer of bad news" if you want. Unfortunately for you, the bad news won't disappear by reverting, only by improving. --178.38.115.208 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────You'll find the answer at WP:TM/D. Warning templates are intended to be temporary measures alerting readers that something is seriously wrong, and to alert editors that the article needs attention. Zziccardi and I are of the opinion that nothing is seriously wrong with the content of this article at this point in time. Therefore, if you think something is wrong, then it is up to you to fix it. Adding a template is not a solution in itself. WWB (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's just temporary, the templates were only just inserted this week! Who are you trying to fool here? You and Zziccardi are behaving as if this article was your personal property. You don't even want to admit there is a serious problem with this article and just stubbornly keep on denying. "Let us all pretend everything is alright und let that ignorant IP do all the dirty work while we deliberately misinterpret some obscure rules." --89.217.6.18 (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
86, it is clear we are not going to resolve this between the two (or three) of us. I don't appreciate your comments on my motivations, particularly when Zziccardi and I have both kept the conversation focused on the content of the article. Likewise, your assertion that we are misinterpreting "obscure rules" is inaccurate and suggests you are not interested in considering our points. Seeing that this is the case, I am going to see if we can find additional viewpoints. WWB (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the tags. The article isn't written in promotional fashion from what I can tell. Those complaining that it is should provide specific examples. You can't just make a complaint and then fail to back it up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
To be more precise: The article was written in promotional fashion, until users SurferJimmy and Owleaf added a "reception" section (many thanks to both of them). Before that the article was in serious imbalance and certain other users couldn't care less. Now that this issue has finally been settled after lots of unneccessary discussion and finger-pointing at the pesky messenger, the templates are not needed anymore. But only as of now. --89.217.24.255 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────Unsurprisingly, the first paragraph of the new section is pretty terrible, leaning heavily on a snap poll conducted in the days after the announcement—and one from before it was even announced. I may try a rewrite myself before too long here. WWB (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it'd be best to hold off on that until we see what happens over on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm with you that the section is rather unsatisfactory as it currently stands, though. —zziccardi (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
So that everyone is aware, this dispute is currently being evaluated on the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). Please feel free to provide your thoughts on the situation and help us to arrive at a mutually accepted resolution there. Thank you! —zziccardi (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, no rush here. Simply wanted to register my view that I do not share 86's view that the current incarnation of this new section is a marked improvement. WWB (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
So, it took me a whole month, but I've now rewritten this section, and retitled it Initial reception. It's too soon to use the phrase "Reception"—a the Time writer I've cited correctly observes, it's far too early to say anything definitive about this product. WWB (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Standalone operation?

Did any announcements reveal standalone operation (not paired with an iPhone) ? Or pairing with an iPod, iPad or Mac? (or non-Apple device?)

Does it work standalone as more than just a watch? (ie, is it an iPod? (music/video player); can you use it like a USB stick for storage?; can it be used as an agenda book keeping schedule for you? can it be used as a dictaphone or notepad?)

If we have these details, it should be added to the article. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Standalone it can play locally stored music and view locally store photos, but storage is very limited. This is in the article. Of course, it can tell time and run some of the watch apps. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Apple Watch Compatibility

Apple Watch can only be paired with iPhone 6/iPhone 6 Plus running iOS 8.2 or later. You cannot pair an Apple Watch with an iPhone 5, 5C, or 5S. 148.73.106.121 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence? Because that directly contradicts what the demonstrator at the Apple Watch Store told me a couple of days ago, and it's an important detail. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The IP is incorrect. [1] --NeilN talk to me 03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tags Question

Are the current tags still appropriate? If so, is there a discussion on what material is problematic? --NeilN talk to me 19:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Not sure if you saw it, but the "Lacking neutrality" section above is the only place where there's been any discussion of the tags as far as I know. I think removing them at this point should be fine, and no one seems to have objected so far. —zziccardi (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

S1 chip or S1 SiP

I think it is more correct to call the S1 SiP (System in Package), not just "chip"

new S1 [[System in Package|SiP]] chip

The press-release http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/09/09Apple-Unveils-Apple-Watch-Apples-Most-Personal-Device-Ever.html says:

Apple custom-designed its own S1 SiP (System in Package) to miniaturize an entire computer architecture onto a single chip.

http://mashable.com/2014/09/09/inside-the-apple-watch/

Chip. To driver the Apple Watch, Apple created a custom S1 SiP (System in Package) chip stack. Apple integrated a number of subsystems into one module, which was then housed in a resin designed to protect it from normal wear and tear. It sounds good, but we won't know exactly how powerful the chip really is until we get to use the device.

So, SiP is several semiconductor dies packaged in single chip stack (package). And word chip is usually used to name package with the single die. `a5b (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.laimarket.com/02mm-real-tempered-glass-screen-protector-for-smart-watch-apple-watch-42mm-p-2946.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramond jojo (talkcontribs) 14:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Baby talk

Some reference should be made to the "baby talk" descriptions of components, which is condescending to anyone who understands even a little technology and science.

E.g. - "Taptic engine" to refer to an implementation of haptic feedback - "Retina display" to refer to a particular screen resolution - "Boot camp" to refer to a boot manager - "Time machine" to refer to a backup system Etc.

It even extends to "genius bar" staffed by "geniuses" (sales counter / sales assistants).

It is Apple's choice to target its products at an audience of limited technical understanding, but the inherent level of condescension and, almost, tongue-in-cheek mockery of its funders is so unusual that it surely warrants highlighting in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.96.3 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean like PC instead of computer-that-happens-to-fit-on-your-desk, or laptop instead of portable-computer-that-fits-often-uncomfortably-on-your-lap-while-you-work? Or mouse instead of tailed-pointing-device-sometimes-with-an-optic-wheel-but-also-sometimes-with-lasers? Or, for that matter, traffic light instead of multi-light-system-for-directing-traffic-quote-safely-unquote-through-an-intersection? Feel free to write about it in a blog post somewhere, but it would hardly be interesting or relevant to an encyclopedia. --Steven Fisher (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to side with the original comment. It would seem that you missed the point that was being made.
PC is an abbreviation of Personal Computer, which describes the device using standard, established terminology. Likewise laptop is short for laptop computer. A computer mouse was a completely new type of device so needed a new word and one which was descriptive of the appearance was chosen. Traffic lights, again, a descriptive phrase using standard terminology to indicate the role of lights used in a particular way.
However, as the article points out, Apple simply used a linear actuator to provide haptic feedback - technology and a concept that have existed for a long while. However the marketing machine wanted to invent a new name to suggest originality, so came up with "Taptic Engine". "Taptic" sounds like the real word, haptic. Engine is a misnomer as in engeering terms it is an actuator and not an engine at all. Thus Apple's actual "invention" was a made-up phrase which is, indeed, somewhat condescending and would sound a little like "baby talk" to anyone with a little technological understanding.
Apple has "form" as the saying goes. Before their latest marketing phrase "haptic engine" they had done exactly the same with "retina display", which is a slightly childish linguistic invention to refer to the resolution of a screen whilst avoiding use of the standard, long-established terminology to try to suggest that they had invented something new, rather than just participated in the long-time trend of increased screen resolutions. It would be similar to a car manufacturer calling a new engine "the slugget engine" and meaning simply that it had a particular capacity. Even "Apple Mac" was an attempt to suggest to the suggestible that it was something other than a "bog standard" personal computer with particular specifications, mostly comprising standard components from a range of manufacturers, just like any other PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.102.208 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the table

The bands section needs reviewing. It's incorrect. Polarbear ed (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)polarbear_ed

Feel free to correct it. Dmarquard (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
What is incorrect? Mention it here and I'll correct it. --Travis Thurston (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The display sizes have been confirmed by Apple in their band development information. (dims in mm:) The active area of the 42 is 27.87 x 21.81, so the diagonal is 35.39. the active area of the 38 is 26.52 x 21.22, so the diagonal is 33.96. This also changes the PPI calculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollywoodF1 (talkcontribs) 00:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bulleted List

Diff Bulleted lists are standard in tech devices infoboxes to keep them clean and organized. Your revision is making the infobox take up 2/3 of my screen and is removing other useful {{cn}} tags and copy edits. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW the IP user claimed that I removed information. This is completely untrue. All I did was to reformat the infobox (incl. indentation of the source code to make also editing easier). --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW the IP user aka.. me.. was forced into an edit war by these two low lifes: User:EoRdE6 & User:KAMiKAZOW, I was falsely accused of being a vandal by: User:KAMiKAZOW here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Watch&oldid=655666527, because I have chosen NOT to sign up for a user account on Wikipedia, as previous accounts I have made edits with, the edits were reverted on multiple pages, not just the one I had edited. I edit a page and then turn my modem off, and back on, to get a new IP address to stop myself from being victimised by the bullies on here that claim that the sun shines out their arse when it doesn't. I am now not able to edit the page due to it being protected by: User:EdJohnston until 16:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC). ALL of the editing I have EVER done on Wikipedia has been to add value and to make it more appealing for people to read the articles I have edited.
I WILL be back after: 16:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC), to re-edit the Apple Watch page, and many others. 124.180.251.73 (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Destroying an article's layout is vandalism. Your idea of a good layout is not appealing, neither are your insults against EoRdE6 and me. You should really think twice before you carry out your plan to vandalize again. It could result in stronger repercussions for you… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I never said you were vandalising, I said you should discuss these changes first as people objected to them. IP hopping isn't going to help anything. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
* I know YOU didn't say I was vandalising User:EoRdE6, User:KAMiKAZOW is the one who said I was being a vandal.
* IP Hopping, as you call it User:EoRdE6, is the only method I can see to stop being bullied by thugs on Wikipedia constantly reverting good edits that I have made because they don't like a previous edit I made on a different page.
* User:KAMiKAZOW can threaten me all you want, your threats are meaningless to me. IF however you decide to DDoS my system again, I WILL be seeking legal action against you for the FULL cost of you interfering with my computer / internet usage.
* User:KAMiKAZOW removal of Citation Tags is just as much vandalism as not putting correct information on a page, the information that was tagged needs to be verified. 124.180.131.32 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@124.180.131.32: Legal threats are not allowed and will not be tolerated. See the message on your talk page for a link to AN/I. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
“thugs on Wikipedia constantly reverting good edits”
– Destroying layouts are not “good edits”.
“your threats are meaningless to me”
– I’m not threatening anybody. Your behavior is clearly against Wikipedia rules. If you don’t change your attitude, it’s probably just a matter of time until you annoy an administrator.
“IF however you decide to DDoS my system again”
– What are you talking about? Why (and how) on earth would I engage a distributed DoS against you? Maybe you should seek some kind of professional counseling.
“removal of Citation Tags is just as much vandalism as not putting correct information on a page, the information that was tagged needs to be verified”
– Um, I added references: [2]. Not sure if you are deluded or lying (personally I don’t care), but your claim is easily refuted. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The IP-hopper is apparently unaware that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This conversation has nothing do do with you User: Baseball Bugs, so mind your own business.

User:KAMiKAZOW This was the threat you made against me "You should really think twice before you carry out your plan to vandalize again. It could result in stronger repercussions for you…" User:KAMiKAZOW Um, I added references: ... Reference was only added to one of the lines tagged with a Citation Needed Tag. User:Baseball Bugs The IP-hopper is apparently unaware that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. I have every right under the constitution for Freedom of Speech in any form or manner. I want the Administrators ( thats Administrators Plural i.e. more than one, so that your friends aren't helping you ) to be involved in this, so I can be [vindicated]. 101.160.130.128 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your "freedom of speech" claim regarding Wikipedia is incorrect. Wikipedia is a privately-owned website, and as such there is no constitutional right to edit it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. It's me again, I would like to apologise to everyone for acting the way I did.

  • Is there any way of getting this ENTIRE section of the Talk page titled "Bulleted Lists" permanently removed from history ?
  • Is there any way of getting the abusive remarks I made in the "View History" page on the actual Apple Watch article permanently removed from history also ?
  • Is there any way of getting the abusive remarks I made in the "View History" page on THIS talk page permanently removed from history also ? 124.180.214.87 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You would have to make your case to an admin. And first you would have to convince the admin that it's really "you". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Baseball Bugs I would need someone to do this for me as I really don't know enough about the "inner workings" of Wikipedia to do that
* I don't want the "View History" page on the actual Apple Watch article to be full of my abusive comments to others.
* I don't want the "View History" page on THIS talk page to be full of my abusive comments to others.
* Is there any way of getting this ENTIRE section of the Talk page titled "Bulleted Lists" permanently removed from history ?
* I don't know how to go about proving that the abuse came from me, as I get a new IP Address each time I start my modem, but I WAS the one who left ALL of the messages in the places listed above.
Once again, I would like to apologise for my outbursts that were uncalled for and unnecessary, and I don't feel others who look at the page should have to look at the remarks I have made towards others who were only trying to help. I want to fix the wrong doings I have created. 60.230.121.252 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
My advice to you is, don't worry about it - just keep to good behavior henceforth and no one will care what you might have said in the past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Display technology AMOLED ?

In the artice it is stated that the display uses AMOLED instead of LCD technology for the first time in an Apple product. However, the reference given is rather speculative, not a trustworthy confirmation. As Apple Watches are shipped by now, it shouldn't be a problem to disassemble a watch to confirm the display technology. If there is no backlighting behind the color display, it is not anymore an LCD. It could well be, that Apple has preferred OLED over LCD technology to have a lower power consumption when the time is displayed as bright hands on a dark background. In this mode of operation, AMOLEDs consume less power than a corresponding LCD. This might be the reason that the "power reserve mode" allows for reading the time for an additional 72 hours. Who can provide a trustworthy confirmation of the display technology used?

BBCLCD (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobelprice Physics 2014 (Blue Lights - Solar Energy) [3] and very good pictures (Zoom) Nobelprice Chemistry 2014 [4] [5]. 213.236.222.243 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The three references you have given don't help to know whether the Apple Watch uses an LCD or an OLED as display. BBCLCD (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation Neeed

Before the Apple iWatch there was the inotify iwatch Breedentials (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice that Apple doesn't use the brand name "iWatch". Initially it intended to do so. However, the Swatch Group objected, as the brand name "iSwatch" was already registered as a trademark and a confusion in the market could result. (see "iSwatch contra "iWatch" In: "Handelszeitung" (in German), May 9, 2014, retrieved May 16, 2015.) BBCLCD (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing battery information

I meant to come to this article to find out about the battery, but the word battery doesn't appear anywhere on the page. Is anything known about it? Alancnet (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Battery information was added to the article for the 38mm version of the watch. Another user left a comment on my talk page with information about the 42mm battery, but the information is not fully sourced (3.70v 0.93Wh 251mAh from http://www.techinsights.com/teardown.com/apple-watch/ and http://www.techinsights.com/teardown/apple-watch-8.jpg ). Once that information is properly sourced we can add it to the page too. HTH, ~ PaulT+/C 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Apple Watch Thickness

The Apple Watch metal case is 10.5mm but the entire unit itself is 12.46mm for the 42mm and 12.2mm for the 38mm. Confirmed by the Band Design Guidelines: https://developer.apple.com/watch/bands/

Wouldn't those dimensions be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.228.6 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice finding! These dimensions seem more applicable, though 12.46 mm vs. 10.5 mm is a pretty large discrepancy (18% thicker). Just looking at these diagrams, it appears they started with the actual 12.46 mm thickness, subtracted off the heart rate sensor (1.07 mm), and then subtracted out the remaining thickness of the surrounding bezel (0.89 mm) to get the 10.5 mm measurement. Seems kind of misleading to me if we continue to use the 10.5 mm measurement. Maybe someone with a bit more expertise can chime in? -Multivariable (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Found a source that includes measurements with and without the heart rate sensor (same as Apple's). [6] -Multivariable (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Inductive charging is not like the MagSafe

Citing The Verge, "The watch is charged by means of inductive charging, using a cable similar to the MagSafe cable for Apple's MacBook family of laptops.". I suggest removing the comparison to the MagSafe cable, as the MagSafe does not use inductive charging (but magnetically attached 'normal' conductive poles. --DWizzy (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's very true. The only thing in common is the use of magnets to hold everything in place, which isn't related to charging. -Multivariable (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

New category for WatchOS apps

I have created a category named WatchOS software. If you come across articles that have WatchOS apps, please tag them with that category. Thanks!

Daylen (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Archive

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone please set this page to be auto archived by a bot.

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

pixel density

the scale between the small and big watch are refer to pixel 1.14 Does apple use 2 differents screen density for their 2 watchs. it seem they scale the area without change the density . http://www.imore.com/apple-watch-sizes-should-you-get-38mm-or-42mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.99.229 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Belle Gibson in the Reception section

I came to this article as a reader interested in learning about the topic, though I have edited many other Wikipedia articles. Reading it, I ran into the sentence/paragraph about Belle Gibson, and my immediate thought was that it does not belong in the article, i.e., it is WP:UNDUE. Looking over the history I see that an IP editor recently made an effort to remove it (albeit without explanation), so I thought perhaps it would be best to raise the issue here rather than taking direct action. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Since two days have gone by without any reply, I have "boldly" taken the action I thought was appropriate -- i.e., removed the paragraph in question. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)