Apple’s iWatch panned by reviewers

salvador-dali-persistence-of-memory-clocks-meaningIt seems that Apple’s iWatch has failed to interest those who know what they are talking about when it comes to technology.

Early versions of the iWatch have been sent to reviewers and the verdict is not that good.

Reviewers have blasted the product for its weak battery life and slow-loading apps.

The Wall Street Journal’s Geoffrey Fowler said that the Apple iWatch is for “pioneers”, as no-one in their right mind would pay the $1,000 it would cost for the model he tested, only to see a significant improvement roll in before too long.

Of course Apple will not care that much, its fanboys are quite willing to be pioneers and will empty their credit cards for anything with an Apple logo on it if they are asked.

Reviews published yesterday made much of the device’s relatively poor battery life – up to 18 hours, according to Apple – and said its apps will need upgrades to load more quickly.

Nilay Patel, who reviewed the watch for theverge.com said that there was “nothing I can’t do faster or better with access to a laptop or a phone except perhaps check the time… the maps app, surely the answer to wandering pedestrians’ dreams, is so slow”.

Loading an app required the watch to pull tremendous amounts of data from iPhones, Patel said, adding that Apple had told him upcoming software updates would address performance problems.

Re/Code’s Lauren Goode said the watch’s battery life was not nearly as long-lasting as some other wearable devices. CNET’s Scott Stein said the battery’s recharge time was slow.

Apple’s favourite paper, the New York Times, did its best to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear by saying that the phone was “initially complex” and not suited to tech novices.  So in other words it is not really rubbish it is just that you are too stupid to use it.

Analysts at Societe Generale said they expected Apple to sell eight million watches in 2015, contributing about 1.7 percent or $4 billion to Apple’s total sales.  This was on the basis that it was any good and would be marketed to death.  However since it failed on the first point, it might not do so well on the second.