Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Watch Hack Adds a Browser For Your Wrist

Posted by timothy on from the close-at-hand dept.

TechCrunch reports that the Apple Watch now evidently has an tantalizing, but unofficial, feature: a browser, created by the jailbreak developer known as Comex. "Not great" is their headline-level assessment of what it looks like to use, which can't be too surprising: even a large watch face is still a small screen, by comparison to a laptop, a tablet, or even a phone. Venture Beat's assessment is similar: "As you’d expect, it’s an awkward mess." Making hardware do things it wasn't intended to is still a worthy pursuit, though, and TechCrunch notes: Out of the box, running arbitrary code like this shouldn’t be possible — while a native SDK is inbound, only stuff built with Apple’s somewhat limited WatchKit framework is supposed to run on the device for now. Is this a subtle demonstration of the world’s first jailbroken Apple Watch?

93 comments

  1. Huh? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 0

    I thought Apple programming was totally free of viruses and hacking stuff?

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Apple phone up to this point has been jailbroken and allowed to run third party stuff. If you did not know this, you are an idiot and should probably not waste anyone's time by posting here. Go find something shiny to drool on.

    2. Re:Huh? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      Every Apple phone up to this point has been jailbroken and allowed to run third party stuff.

      There are no tethered or untethered jailbreak options for the current OS 8.3.

    3. Re:Huh? by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      up to this point

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    4. Re:Huh? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      there will likely never be a jailbreak of 8.3. 8.4 is coming out in a month or so, and 9 will be coming out in the fall, so 8.3 will likely remain unbeatable. it looks like apple plugged existing holes that enabled past jailbreaks, so the hacker community is starting from scratch. and the cat and mouse game continues...

      8.2 was jailbreaked by a Chinese hacker group. why would anybody want to install software on their phone from a Chinese hacker group? makes no sense.

  2. Sums the watch up... by koan · · Score: 2

    "As you’d expect, it’s an awkward mess."

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny because they acknowledge that a really cool and fundamental feature on every other gadget is expected to be an awkward mess on the Apple Watch.

    2. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I figure they mean on any watch sized screen...not just the Apple Watch.

    3. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As you’d expect, it’s an awkward mess."

      I wouldn't say it's an "awkward mess", it isn't even awkward to use, it's just kind of useless. Our office got one and I have been using it for the last week, it's just really underwhelming.

      The hardware is built well but the battery life (for the purposes of being a watch and/or activity tracker) is terrible.
      Directions could have niche use-case advantages but really you want to set the route up on your phone first then you just have it for turn-by-turn, but if you're in the car or on your bike it's no different from getting the direction notifications from your phone.
      You'd think notifications would be decent but unless you are constantly doing 1-word replies you end up using your phone anyway.

      It just doesn't feel like an Apple product, they usually take some task that is clunky and not user-friendly and then present it in a user-friendly way (mp3 players, mobile web browsing, tablet computing, etc) but the Apple Watch doesn't have that "killer feature", it just provides minor efficiency improvements in very narrow use cases. The only "unique" feature of it is the extremely gimmicky (and very sappy) way you can send your heartbeat (or a sketch). Apple isn't usually about differentiation through cheesy gimmicks. It's not a bad product, it's just not a very good or useful one.

    4. Re:Sums the watch up... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've been wearing one for a week, and I've really been enjoying it. Some points:
      * I was really surprised at how battery life wasn't a problem at all. The first week I was reaching the end of day with 50% charge left. Definitely requires overnight charging, but other than that no battery problems. I even took the battery indicator off the homescreen cuz it wasnt an issue.
      * I'm of two minds on the notifications. Good in theory. But the "wrist tap" is a little subtle for me and I often miss it. also, I wish the notification was available for longer on the screen.
      * the killer killer app for me, the thing that once I tried it once became indespensible, is seeing my next appointment on my watch face. holy cow it just blows me away how handy this it. it requires a bit of work to keep your calendar up to date and consise (the entry names should be less than 16 characters), but once that's in place it's super handy.
      * I like the ability to change watch faces, but it's not a big deal. I have a workday info-packed face, a weekend relaxed face and an evening chill face. no big deal, but it's nice.
      * the thing is really small and light. I can easily wear it all day and not notice.
      * the apps are mostly a pain in the ass. jury is out on that one.
      * an exception is the watch's remote app, which among other things can control my apple tv. it's surprisingly handy! good thing, too, because I lost my apple remote about a week ago and don't know where it went!

      so there you go, first impressions on apple watch.

    5. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      * I was really surprised at how battery life wasn't a problem at all. The first week I was reaching the end of day with 50% charge left. Definitely requires overnight charging, but other than that no battery problems. I even took the battery indicator off the homescreen cuz it wasnt an issue.

      I should clarify, what I mean is that you can't wear it overnight and, in terms of fitness tracking, sleep is a very important aspect. Also I found friday night when I went out after work it was dead by the time I got home, which was about 19 or 20 hours after I got up.

      it requires a bit of work to keep your calendar up to date and consise (the entry names should be less than 16 characters)

      I forgot to mention that's one of the other issues I had, I get lots of meeting requests that aren't sent by me which means to make this useful I would have to not just accept them but go in and edit the meeting title every time just to fit the watch. For my own appointments it isnt a big deal to keep that in mind but for others it is a PITA.

    6. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The first week I was reaching the end of day with 50% charge left.

      Then it's worse than useless in my world. I sometimes do long shifts, and need a reliable timepiece. Having complex features available could be pleasant, but having to take my watch off and put it on a charging cable or stand means I don't have it with me. Having to keep available and put it on a charger on the road or on long work sessions makes it a burden, not a feature. If I have to do that, I may as well carry my smartphone.

      I looked over an iWatch yesterday. (And yes, it's an iWatch, whatever marketing Apple wants to play this time around.) I'm afraid it's a pretty and expensive toy to show off how "hipster" you are. Watching the sales rep with the iWatch shake his wrist every so often to see the time towards the end of the meeting, especially as he was doing it with his hand obscured by the table top to be discreet, made him look hike he was doing something even less discreet in the meeting. And given the nonsense about service and features he was trying to sell us, he's not the person he should have been using his left wrist that way on to try and close that sale.

      It's actually a pretty good flag for "this person is a clueless hipster twit who mistakes glitz for function: don't buy *anything* from this fool, because their service and their warranty will also fail far, far too early"..

      I expect it to be Zune-like in its market presence.

    7. Re:Sums the watch up... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      * I was really surprised at how battery life wasn't a problem at all. The first week I was reaching the end of day with 50% charge left. Definitely requires overnight charging, but other than that no battery problems. I even took the battery indicator off the homescreen cuz it wasnt an issue.

      I should clarify, what I mean is that you can't wear it overnight and, in terms of fitness tracking, sleep is a very important aspect. Also I found friday night when I went out after work it was dead by the time I got home, which was about 19 or 20 hours after I got up.

      Of course you can, you just charge it during your drive to/from work - or is that also part of your fitness regime? Heck, charge it while at work, have it sit right in front of you (and put it on when you leave your desk, of course).

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you can, you just charge it during your drive to/from work - or is that also part of your fitness regime? Heck, charge it while at work, have it sit right in front of you (and put it on when you leave your desk, of course).

      I could but that's when I charge my phone. I take my phone out of my pocket when I sit at the desk or get into the car, I don't take my watch off.

      I wouldn't mind the limitations and would be happy to work around them if it were actually useful, but it really isn't and that's the main problem with it. I am often called a "fanboy" because I use an MBP, have an MBA, I still have an iPod classic, my primary phone since the 3GS came out has been an iPhone and I just recently upgraded my iPad 2 to an iPad Air 2 but the reason is because the iPod made mp3 players palatable to most people, made them useful and user-friendly, they weren't the first to the category but they were the ones to make a product good enough to popularize it. The same goes for smartphones and tablets...but not watches. I am certainly not anti-Apple but the Apple Watch isn't re-defining the smartwatch category or creating a game-changer, it's just an Apple version of the existing Android Wear smartwatches with a couple of Apple-specific gimmicks, it's very underwhelming.

      If you like it, cool. Many people like Android Wear devices too and this is the iPhone-compatible version. I was hoping Apple would do what they did with other device categories and not just produce a me-too product, unfortunately that hasn't happened.

    9. Re:Sums the watch up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone needs to come up with a name like the all familiar "Glasshole" but for apple watch users.

    10. Re:Sums the watch up... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Someone needs to come up with a name like the all familiar "Glasshole" but for apple watch users.

      "Twat" works for me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Sums the watch up... by laird · · Score: 1

      Interesting review, but the comment you were replying to "As you’d expect, it’s an awkward mess" was not about the Apple Watch, it was about doing a naive port of a *web browser to the Apple Watch where the *browser* was, as you would expect, useless, though an interesting tech demo.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    12. Re:Sums the watch up... by colekane7745 · · Score: 1

      I guess Apple is just overrated...

  3. Not subtle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a .... demonstration of the world’s first jailbroken Apple Watch?

    Maybe.

    Is this a subtle demonstration of the world’s first jailbroken Apple Watch?

    No.

  4. Who would want that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if you could even navigate the internet properly on such a tiny screen.

    1. Re:Who would want that... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I used to browse the web on a Palm Treo with almost the same number of pixels as the Apple Watch has. Tapping on links would suck but it wouldnt be a big deal to spin crown on it to cycle through the clickable areas of the screen. Tie it into the bookmarks on the phone and, while not the most robust thing in the world, you could at least get some light reading in.

      I remember people asking about why anybody would use an internet browser on their phone when they could just use their laptop.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Who would want that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Zoom in on one section of the page, then pan around the page as the user moves their wrist around (using the gyro to detect motion). It'd be like viewing the webpage through a tiny magnifying glass!

    3. Re:Who would want that... by narcc · · Score: 1

      I had a Sony Ericsson J300A phone at one point. It was tiny little thing, but fast for the time. Despite the tiny display, it was fine for catching up on the news and other light browsing tasks.

      Of course, back then, having a "mobile site" meant something completely different than it does today. I can see the Apple Watch being fine for mobile web use in 2005.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    4. Re:Who would want that... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Back then you also had a different mobile web design standard.
      It tried to stay with strict html/2 features. And was quite limited.
      What would be like if you used that device today.

      When I first started to use the web, I was at 800*600 at 8 bit display. I used Mosaic or Lynx. I used a slip connection to dial in at 14.4k.
      And I had access to the primitive web. Most of it were links to FTP sites.

      Today it is a very different web, so saying my old tech worked great 10 years ago doesn't mean it will work well today.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Who would want that... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I remember people asking about why anybody would use an internet browser on their phone when they could just use their laptop.

      I have an iphone, but it really isn't all that for browsing, same with Android. I suspect I'm an outlier, because I like big. I've got 2-27 inch screens at home, and will be two 30s next chance I get.

      I do often use my phone to tether to my laptop.

      Maybe it's presbyopia, I dunno. I do note that some smartphones are getting to the size where people look a little silly holding a tablet to their head. Like something PeeWee Herman would use.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Who would want that... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I remember people asking about why anybody would use an internet browser on their phone when they could just use their laptop.

      Most people didn't except in the case where they didn't have their laptop with them because it was a crappy user experience, then the iPhone came along and made the experience good. The Apple Watch needs you to have your phone with you for connectivity so I don't think many people are going to prefer browsing on a watch which is a poor experience where you have to scroll through clickable areas and can't type URLs when they can just use their iPhone.

    7. Re:Who would want that... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I think reality is going to, again, surprise us.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Who would want that... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I think reality is going to, again, surprise us.

      I like the optimism but an intuitive smartphone browser solved an actual problem, an Apple Watch browser (even if it's intuitive) still doesn't solve any problem, provide any advantage or improve on any workflow. Scrolling through the clickable areas is how WAP browsing worked on my dumbphone and that is just awful.

    9. Re:Who would want that... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I remember people asking about why anybody would use an internet browser on their phone when they could just use their laptop.

      That was back when phones had a two inch screen, and it was an entirely legitimate point.

      Internet browsers on a medium to large screened smartphone are usable enough, but they're still frustrating compared to a laptop (or tablet).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Who would want that... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      That was back when phones had a two inch screen, and it was an entirely legitimate point.

      It was back when PocketPC's were at the peak, and no it wasn't a legitimate point. This was happening at the same time cameras with cell phones were being poo-poo'd because apparently everybody on this site has a good deal more pocket space than the average person.

      Personally I don't know whether to attribute this to typical Slashdot contrarianism or if the expense was high enough people were going to have to wait and that was how they kept their envy under control. Probably a mixture of both.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Who would want that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was back when PocketPC's were at the peak

      And the browsing experience on them was rubbish compared to what you got on a laptop. Whereas today the browsing experience on an tablet/smartphone is pretty much on par with what you get on a desktop/laptop.

      This was happening at the same time cameras with cell phones were being poo-poo'd because apparently everybody on this site has a good deal more pocket space than the average person.

      No it was because those cameras were of such poor quality as to be almost useless, whereas today they are as good, if not better, than the average point-and-shoot camera.

      Personally I don't know whether to attribute this to typical Slashdot contrarianism

      It is basic logic: the quality and experience is so far from parity with the incumbent solution that it is mostly useless.

      You are trying really hard to evangelize this, so what is the advantage that will attract users? Why would somebody use the browser on the watch instead of the browser of the smartphone in their pocket?

    12. Re:Who would want that... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Whereas today the browsing experience on an tablet/smartphone is pretty much on par with what you get on a desktop/laptop.

      Right. Stop and think for a minute about why that happened.

      No it was because those cameras were of such poor quality as to be almost useless

      No it wasn't. The fact even the earliest shittiest cell phone camera was better than not having a camera at all. The logic was that everybody'd start carrying their camera with them at all times. That was flawed logic on day one.

      You are trying really hard to evangelize this, so what is the advantage that will attract users

      That is a disingenuous assumption of my motives. If I'm evangelizing anything it's objectivity. History has already told you that your assumptions can easily be wrong, this case is no different. Tech gets better, software gets better, and we live in an age where information is being digested to suit your needs. There's no reason to think it won't happen.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:Who would want that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Stop and think for a minute about why that happened.

      Because the form factor was never the problem, the technology was. In the case of watches the technology is there, the form factor is just useless for it. As we have seen information becoming more rich in content and the bandwidth of mobile devices increasing we have seen screen sizes increase to accommodate that richness, not a reduction in the information to fit smaller screens.

      No it wasn't. The fact even the earliest shittiest cell phone camera was better than not having a camera at all.

      The Apple Watch requires you to carry your iPhone for internet access! Which means in this case you do have the better experience with you right in your pocket!

      Even though that requirement didn't exist for cell phone cameras they still didn't outpace traditional point-and-shoot cameras until their quality was close to parity, we all know this already.

      That is a disingenuous assumption of my motives. If I'm evangelizing anything it's objectivity.

      Where did I assume your motives? I didn't suggest any motivation whatsoever, in fact I asked what your motives were.

      History has already told you that your assumptions can easily be wrong, this case is no different.

      And they have also told us that those assumptions can be right, so the question to you is: why do you believe these assumptions to be wrong?

      Tech gets better, software gets better, and we live in an age where information is being digested to suit your needs.

      And the technology has adapted to fit the information, not the other way around. Reformatting for a touchscreen portrait layout, is not the same as cutting th information down to be consumable on a 40mm diagonal watch. We have already been down that road and cut down the information to suit the technology with WAP browsers and the like and it was terrible, that's why the trend of miniaturizing phones totally reversed once we had the increased computing power and bandwidth.

      There's no reason to think it won't happen.

      And I can pose the irrefutable counter-argument that there is no reason to think it will happen, which has absolutely the same amount of merit.

      So again, what is the advantage that will attract users? Why would somebody use the browser on the watch instead of the browser of the smartphone in their pocket?

    14. Re:Who would want that... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      As we have seen information becoming more rich in content and the bandwidth of mobile devices increasing we have seen screen sizes increase to accommodate that richness, not a reduction in the information to fit smaller screens.

      This is plainly untrue. Not only do we have the "Reader" mode that digests the information but we've lived in the RSS age for quite a while now. We haven't even started discussing the running of apps designed for the watch. We're well beyond WAP, as you've mentioned later in your post, and it's in a perfect place to create a browsing experience for something like the Apple Watch. Even Samsung has added a wheel to their lineup for the same purpose.

      The Apple Watch requires you to carry your iPhone for internet access! Which means in this case you do have the better experience with you right in your pocket!

      I bolded the operative part of your statement. To answer an earlier comment you made: Plenty of people made the case that cell phones were a terrible form factor for browsing the net.

      Even though that requirement didn't exist for cell phone cameras they still didn't outpace traditional point-and-shoot cameras until their quality was close to parity, we all know this already.

      Outpacing anything is not a factor in this conversation. Nobody's telling you to throw your phone away.

      Where did I assume your motives? I didn't suggest any motivation whatsoever, in fact I asked what your motives were.

      You said I was evangelizing the watch. Your question was built from that premise. Browsing on the watch could turn out to be totally useless. Nothing I've said actually discounts that possibility because I'm saying, instead, that you can't tell that from here. I can invent reasons, but that's incongruous to the point I've been making.

      And they have also told us that those assumptions can be right, so the question to you is: why do you believe these assumptions to be wrong?

      I don't believe they're wrong, I just don't believe they're right. Now if you're really asking why I'm receptive to the idea it's because I have a Pebble Watch that, in short, is a second monitor for my phone. I have plenty of cases where it's more useful to get information on that display than to remove my phone from my pocket. If you'd like to know more about that I'd be happy to share that info with you.

      And I can pose the irrefutable counter-argument that there is no reason to think it will happen...

      Lots of people thought that their reasoning for cell phones not having cameras was irrefutable, too. It's not. Just being proven wrong due to lack of foresight is reason enough. The real irrefutable question is: "Do modern smartwatches want to part you from your money?" I'm not being snarky, that's perfectly fine.

      So again, what is the advantage that will attract users? Why would somebody use the browser on the watch instead of the browser of the smartphone in their pocket?

      You can reach your wrist quicker than dig into your pocket. I get headlines on my Pebble Watch, for example. I'd love to be able to scroll down and finish the story since I'm already there.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    15. Re:Who would want that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is plainly untrue.

      It isn't untrue at all. We have richer internet experiences and larger screens, not smaller ones.

      Not only do we have the "Reader" mode that digests the information but we've lived in the RSS age for quite a while now.

      Reader mode doesn't make the content any more applicable to a smaller device and is limited to a subset of web content. And RSS feeds are not a web browser.

      We're well beyond WAP, as you've mentioned later in your post, and it's in a perfect place to create a browsing experience for something like the Apple Watch.

      But again, why would you do it?

      I bolded the operative part of your statement.

      So your "benefit" is that you don't have to reach into your pocket and you feel that outweighs all the negatives? Calculator watches meant that you could have a calculator on your wrist instead of having to do that all-too-cumbersome task of reaching in to your pocket, look at how many people use those! Same goes for GPS watches and the many other wearables that offer web browsers that nobody uses because they offer no benefit.

      Plenty of people made the case that cell phones were a terrible form factor for browsing the net.

      Plenty of people said the experience was poor, not that there was anything wrong with the form factor.

      Outpacing anything is not a factor in this conversation. Nobody's telling you to throw your phone away.

      But quite clearly nobody was using a crappy sub-VGA smartphone camera if they had a point-and-shoot in their pocket.

      You said I was evangelizing the watch.

      I said you were evangelizing the browser-on-watch concept, how do you misinterpret that to me assuming your motives? What do you think I assumed your motives to be? I don't see any place I suggested what your motivation might be at all, could you point me to where you got this idea from?

      Browsing on the watch could turn out to be totally useless.

      It is useless, the question is whether or not that will change for it to become useful, you seem to think so and I'm trying to ascertain why.

      I don't believe they're wrong, I just don't believe they're right.

      Then what are they?

      I have plenty of cases where it's more useful to get information on that display than to remove my phone from my pocket.

      No doubt they have uses, even RSS feeds (which has nothing to do with a web browser) but if you're going to take the time to read the article associated with the RSS feed then you're going to do the trivial task of taking your phone to do so given the advantages the phone has over the watch.

      And I can pose the irrefutable counter-argument that there is no reason to think it will happen...

      Lots of people thought that their reasoning for cell phones not having cameras was irrefutable, too. It's not.

      You're getting lost, I didn't say the argument for browsing the web on a watch was irrefutable, I said your primary argument has an equally weighted counter argument.

      The real irrefutable question is: "Do modern smartwatches want to part you from your money?" I'm not being snarky, that's perfectly fine.

      Well now you're trying to move the goalposts, this is about a browser on a watch, not smartwatches in general.

      You can reach your wrist quicker than dig into your pocket.

      Really? That's it? The idea that the inferior watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea, it's more difficult and, if you're carrying something, less convenient. In case you haven't noticed we already have plenty of watches with browsers and it is a massive "do not want" from consumers. RSS headlines? Sure. Reading articles? Nope.

    16. Re:Who would want that... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Really? That's it? The idea that the inferior watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea, it's more difficult and, if you're carrying something, less convenient.

      Heh. You're the first person I've talked to that complained about smart watches using both hands. Kudos to that. Anyway, this is exactly the benefit the watches bring and a growing number of people like it.

      In case you haven't noticed we already have plenty of watches with browsers and it is a massive "do not want" from consumers. RSS headlines? Sure. Reading articles? Nope.

      No, we really don't have it, yet. We're still at the vga phone camera stage. As for the massive "do not want' from consumers, you're saying that after Apple sold over a million Apple Watches.

      ...but if you're going to take the time to read the article associated with the RSS feed then you're going to do the trivial task of taking your phone to do so given the advantages the phone has over the watch.

      If all I have to do is scroll a little further, I won't bother getting the phone out.

      So your "benefit" is that you don't have to reach into your pocket and you feel that outweighs all the negatives?

      All of them? No. A lot of them? Oh, yes. Actually the Pebble Watch has been a great purchase for me, my phone spends a lot more time in my pocket. I want more from it.

      I said you were evangelizing the browser-on-watch concept, how do you misinterpret that to me assuming your motives?

      For starters: No, I did not evangelize browser-on-watch. There's your misinterpretation right there. What I am telling you about, for the second time, is objectivity. You seriously just said something as stupid as "... watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea." Why is that stupid? You've never tried it. You don't know... which in and of itself isn't so bad, but you're arguing with somebody who does know. It's not helping you. You've already learned this lesson, but here we are, 2015, and you're doing it again.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. Re:Why? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    I'd like an RSS reader for my Pebble, I can only imagine it being better on an Apple Watch.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  6. Lynx? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe someone can port a text mode browser like Lynx, Elinks or W3M or something really hardcore, a command-line browser like edbrowse (http://edbrowse.org/). Then we don't have to worry about all the panning and dragging around the small screen.

    1. Re:Lynx? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Or go back to BBS days with 80x24 text resolution. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Lynx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what are you going to type on?

    3. Re:Lynx? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Or go back to BBS days with 80x24 text resolution. ;)

      Wouldn't that be unreadably small on that tiny watch face?

    4. Re:Lynx? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Not as small as you would think.
      Back in those days the average monitor was a 12" viewable display.
      I still think 80*24 will be a bit small on a watch. But 40x24 may work.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Lynx? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Oops, you're right. 40x24. Duh.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Lynx? by antdude · · Score: 1

      You're right. I meant to type 40x24. Duh me.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Lynx? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And what are you going to type on?

      You could use your phone's keyboard.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. BIF by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It's funny because they acknowledge that a really cool and fundamental feature

    If you see a browser on a watch, they have failed.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:BIF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny because they acknowledge that a really cool and fundamental feature

      If you see a browser on a watch, they have failed.

      I see a browser on the Apple Watch.

    2. Re:BIF by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      It's funny because they acknowledge that a really cool and fundamental feature

      If you see a browser on a watch, they have failed.

      I see a browser on the Apple Watch.

      Not by Apple, so somebody else failed.

      But that aside: It's funny how people always point out there were smartphones before the iPhone which were just fine for web browsing - but they had a lower resolution screen than the Apple Watch, which you can't use for browsing. Errhmmmh.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    3. Re:BIF by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It's funny how people always point out there were smartphones before the iPhone which were just fine for web browsing - but they had a lower resolution screen than the Apple Watch, which you can't use for browsing. Errhmmmh.

      Obviously because screen resolution isn't the beginning and the end for usability.

    4. Re:BIF by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      It's funny how people always point out there were smartphones before the iPhone which were just fine for web browsing - but they had a lower resolution screen than the Apple Watch, which you can't use for browsing. Errhmmmh.

      Obviously because screen resolution isn't the beginning and the end for usability.

      You are right - that's why the first "big" Android phones actually had a lower resolution and still were so much better to use. Or something.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    5. Re:BIF by exomondo · · Score: 1

      You are right - that's why the first "big" Android phones actually had a lower resolution and still were so much better to use. Or something.

      Not sure why you think I'm implying that, I put it pretty simply that the notion that screen resolution is the only thing that matters for usability is pretty stupid. Just you because you have a high resolution screen doesn't mean it's automatically going to be fine for web browsing.

  8. Because all pixel sizes are equal by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I used to browse the web on a Palm Treo with almost the same number of pixels as the Apple Watch has.

      I didn't have the Treo but I seem to remember the screen being a lot larger, and it also had a keyboard too...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Because all pixel sizes are equal by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You're right about the KB, and it had a stylus as well. However, the Treo had to make compromises to display web pages due to the low resolution of the display. The same would have to happen here, and frankly you can always bring the watch closer to your face. Keep in mind Apple's Reader mode for its browser, it'd work well on the watch.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Because all pixel sizes are equal by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      and frankly you can always bring the watch closer to your face.

      You have an unpleasant surprise in store for you as you age. Minimum close focus gets further back, to where you really cannot just bring the tiny screen closer...

      Go into an Apple Store, reading the web on that display is just not practical.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Because all pixel sizes are equal by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I read plenty of stuff off my Pebble.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Because all pixel sizes are equal by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Reading is one thing, browsing quite another...

      Also worth considering - the Pebble display is 30x50mm on the old Pebble, just 20.1x23.44mm on the Time.

      The Apple Watch 38mm has a 21.2x26.5mm display, the 42mm version has 2.3x30.8mm...

      So the old Pebble is substantially larger than any of the new models, and somewhat easier to read as a result.

      I have a Pebble Time on order, it will be interesting to compare... but I just can't see browsing on any of them at all useful beyond something like an RSS feed worth of info.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Because all pixel sizes are equal by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You have an unpleasant surprise in store for you as you age. Minimum close focus gets further back, to where you really cannot just bring the tiny screen closer...

      This is a solved problem. Google "reading glasses" or "spectacles to correct long sightedness".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. WAP by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The return of WAP sites.
    Are any of them still around?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:WAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have liked if the spec of that was updated with templating and some basic JS-levels of interactivity to enable low-tier DOM manipulation and such.
      To be able to replicate the simpler mobile sites of today (not the shit ones, the actual decent ones) would make it a much better idea.
      Having the overhead of current web browsers in such small devices is pointless, especially when barely a single one of them will ever bother using more advanced features. (and by advanced, I mean even HTML4 era stuff)

      HTML and related specs really do need a mini-spec. Or at least one optimized for limited featuresets, and have bulkier rendering and parsing side-loaded if it is ever requested. (with a clear warning in the specs that it will incur general slowdown and an initial overhead of loading it in)
      Instead, many specs have died over the years that all had useful features. Still DO have useful features.

      Gopher, likewise, could have been updated with simple templating, hard-coded dynamic updates so you could fill said templates with new data, literal parameter1 goes to field1 tier stuff, no advanced crap.
      Customizable styling and sections that were fixed locations so at least websites could differ their gopher pages, tailor them to their... brands, so at least they are recognizable.
      But still keep it simple. No animation, no pop-ups ruining your day, not even images.
      This could have been what Twitter was. Now we have... that disaster. That disaster with an inconsistent user interface, clicks that do wild and unpredictable things, a case of "you have to learn Twitters UI, at least its different!" idiocy, infinite scrolling crap, auto-playing videos and so on.

    2. Re:WAP by colekane7745 · · Score: 1

      Every day ths is less popular so... you better do not waste your time...

  10. Re:Why? by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

    Indeed, I still don't understand why anyone would want an Apple Watch.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  11. Oh yeah? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I hacked my browser to be an Apple Watch.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  12. Truesmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I wouldn't buy from them again ( lack of updates from them), their 1st gen Truesmart blows the Apple watch away. It's it's own phone if needed, and can do browsing and typing easily on the watchface. Seriously I use swype on it, and it's no worse than my s4 or nexus 7.

    I can comfortably run either Chrome or Firefox on the Truesmart.
    I can comfortably IM/text with it.
    I can watch videos (resolution isn't very good for that though).
    I can do most things smartphones can do with it.

    Aside from the Pebble, which is basically another category, I have not seen a smartwatch that is impressive.

  13. Great, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we will watch, *no pun intended*, the whole internet change their web pages to fit a frickin' watch size screen.

    Desktop users will be damed and the smartphone users will now know what it feels like to be a desktop user.

    1. Re:Great, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha y
      eah tha
      t sound
      s about
      right

  14. It doesn't need a browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    evidently has an tantalizing

    It needs a grammar checker.

  15. Yeah, but I've got the killer app by popo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm building an iPhone app that tells you (on your iPhone screen) what time it is on your Apple Watch.

    It's a way to use your phone, so that you don't have to glance at your watch.

    It's going to be awesome. Next I'm going to make a way to show you the iPhone alerts on your Apple Watch, on your iPhone.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Yeah, but I've got the killer app by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      I'm building an iPhone app that tells you (on your iPhone screen) what time it is on your Apple Watch.

      It's a way to use your phone, so that you don't have to glance at your watch.

      It's going to be awesome. Next I'm going to make a way to show you the iPhone alerts on your Apple Watch, on your iPhone.

      I'm seeing a lot of potential here! Maybe one day we won't have to wear a watch at all to tell the time and see notifications...

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  16. Cool story bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the things-the-world-can-go-without dept.

  17. Seriously by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    I wish there is a poll "Do you have or plan to buy this year the Apple Watch v 1.0?" to show a Yes being < 5%.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Seriously by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Probably less than 1%. But that doesn't mean it's not News for Nerds. Apple has a history of introducing whole new ways of looking at hardware: the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. Each had predecessors, of course, but when Apple introduced one the product sector took off, not just for Apple but for its competitors. Apple has a knack for finding new ways for people to interact with devices that people find appealing. The technical respects may be weaker than other competing devices, but the aesthetics drive a lot of consumer demand.

      So few Slashdotters will own one this year, but it's worth reading the news to see if we're all going to own one (or a competitor) in five years. Or perhaps more importantly: if all of our customers are going to be.

  18. missing the right apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry it's not an apple device worth having until it can run Lode Runner

  19. convergence by kennethmci · · Score: 1

    i know lots of companies are trying to merge their technologies until everything ends up being...well, everything! but ive started changing my mindset about all this crap. i was gonna purchase an apple watch - but then realised it was 'good' at the stuff it done, but not great at the specifics? i got a microsoft band ( 3 day battery life on normal use, great health tracking and simple notifications from the phone ) . i got rid of my 16GB Macbook pro ( which i was only using for watching films and browsing the web since i recently upgraded my PC ) and purchased a chromebook with a 14 hour battery life.

    i used to love the idea of having devices that could do more and more stuff - but i think theyre losing so much focus that the basics of what SHOULD be great is getting lost.

    the only exception i make to this in my life is my phone - as i appreciate all the functions it offers and does them quite well.

    1. Re:convergence by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I agree. I get much better results from my handheld GPS than I do from trying to use my phone for the purpose of a GPS. I don't wear a watch. But if I did, I'd probably want it to just be a watch. A Microsoft Band or FitBit, is a lot more appealing than an iWatch if I actually waned to track that kind of stuff. With the iWatch you have to plug it in every night, so it loses the ability to track your sleep. With the other options, you only have to plug it in once every few days, so you could presumably charge it when you are just sitting at your desk or watching TV when you are sedentary and there is nothing to track anyway.

      Unless we get to the point where I can carry a cell phone sized device that can fulfill all my computing needs, and all my other devices are just dumb screens that interface with that computer, then I think I would rather just have dedicated devices. True convergence only happens when 1 device really can fulfill all your needs, rather than pretending that an underpowered device can do all those tasks, and yet fails at most things.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  20. Watch ideal just fails with small screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even think I could get interested in a Apple watch even if it could function without a iPhone? The whole ideal of doing tasks on such a small screen even one that has thought through how to interact with such a screen is still a challenge. After all, I thought the demand from consumers with smartphones was bigger screens? Not build me a tiny watch screen that requires a iPhone that has a much better screen. I guess I am just looking at it from a practical side and it's limitation with size for any kind of display is just never going to get me interested.

  21. I can do that with my $65 Moto 360! by jerryjnormandin · · Score: 1

    That's right .. After a sale and a return of a pay as you go android smart phone my total cost was $65.00 And it's real easy to run a browser on a Moto 360.

    1. Re:I can do that with my $65 Moto 360! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really reaching there, aren't you? I sold back my last cell phone to Verizon too but I'd never call my current cell an 80 dollar cellphone.

  22. Obligatory Dilbert by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-...

    1. Re:Obligatory Dilbert by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      You realize this actually (sort of) happened, right?

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:Obligatory Dilbert by colekane7745 · · Score: 1

      what is this?

  23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the point is the web browser - that's just a demonstration of the fact that they've managed to get arbitrary code running on it.

  24. Re:Why? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I still don't understand why anyone would want an Apple Watch.

    Me either, but if people want them, there they are. And if its a mouth foaming issue against Apple, there will be plenty of Android watches.

    Hell, I cant figure why anyone would even want a regular wristwatch.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  25. Real world example by doconnor · · Score: 1

    I use the browser on my Android Wear watch regularly to show transit arrival predictions from my website, TransSee. I added a setting to push the header information to be bottom to get it to be easier to read.

  26. Re:Why? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I cant figure why anyone would even want a regular wristwatch.

    Going out on a limb here, it might be to do with telling the time.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  27. Re:Why? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I cant figure why anyone would even want a regular wristwatch.

    Going out on a limb here, it might be to do with telling the time.

    True, but I already am surrounded by devices that tell me what time it is. The car radio display, the office, my iphone, my desktop, my laptop, my tablets, a clock in most of the rooms of my house.

    One more device, and one that gets stinky if it's got a leather band, or pinches off the hair on my wrist, Or just sweaty if plastic, has about 0 added value.

    Now of course watches are often used as a status symbol. but I think I'll pass on that.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in high school I had this friend who got a nasty skin allergy because of his wristwatch. Ew. Since then, I refuse to wear one.

  29. Re:Why? by laird · · Score: 1

    Exactly - "smart watches" aren't particularly for telling time, they are a small display that's visible at a glance for notifications and other information you want easily. For example, my Pebble tells me about my next meeting, including drive time, which is great to be able to easily watch so that I stay on schedule. And it's an activity tracker (running Up software) so I don't need to wear a separate activity tracker band. And it tells me who's calling so that I can decide whether to accept or reject a call w/out pulling my phone out. And check Uber cabs in the area. Think of it as the most valuable 10% of what you can do on a phone, made more convenient so that you don't have to pull your phone out as often.

    Nobody dies if they don't have a smart watch, of course, but it does make life easier.

    --
    Enable 3D printed prosthetics!