Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on have been used up meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to have been used up meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of have been used up meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding have been used up meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of have been used up meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of have been used up meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on have been used up meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around have been used up meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of have been used up meaning.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about have been used up meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of have been used up meaning.
The latest update of your smartwatch has smartwatch vs normal watch the future of smartwatches should i get a smartwatch 2018 the latest update of your smartwatch how long smartwatch last should i get a smartwatch 2018 facebook plans monitor smartwatch next summer your next step you re next movie your next bus
Your Next Smartwatch May Have 90 Hours of Battery Life and Maybe a Camera Too
Your Next Smartwatch May Have 90 Hours of Battery Life and Maybe a Camera Too
People often gripe about smartwatch battery life, and for good reason, as even premium watches like the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 last only two to three days before needing a recharge. But Qualcomm's upcoming W5 chips promise to extend battery life by up to 24 hours thanks to a slew of performance and efficiency advancements.
These new designs, officially called the Snapdragon W5 and W5 Plus, are the successors to the Snapdragon 4100 and 4100 Plus that powered the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4, TicWatch 3 Pro and other wearables that statistically few people actually bought. Qualcomm said its new silicon achieves better battery life by reducing the chip's size to 4nm. That's just a fraction of the 80,000 nanometer size of a human hair, and down from 12nm in the 4100 series.
Qualcomm's W5 Plus has all those benefits, plus an extra feature to eke out even more battery life of up to 24 hours longer than with the prior 4100 Plus chip. The W5 Plus pulls this off with what's called a co-processor, or effectively a separate computer chip designed to do basic tasks, like displaying notifications.
In the W5 Plus, Qualcomm has also decreased how much of the chip's various parts "wake up" to do something, leaving the rest dormant to save even more battery. For instance, when going for a run or listening to music, only the satellite GPS location service, Wi-Fi, and audio portions functions would be active. Qualcomm's senior director of Head and Wearables, Pankaj Kedia, compared it to only turning on a few lights to get to the kitchen at night instead of wastefully flipping on every light in the house. "The rest of the SoC is power collapsed so you get longer battery life," Kedia said.
Qualcomm's steady drumbeat of wearable advances are arriving as smartwatches are becoming more common. Smartwatches have already outsold the entire Swiss watch industry. The questions facing tech companies now are whether smartwartwatches will remain a relatively niche product among techies and fitness enthusiasts, or whether new functionality can make them essential to more customers' lives.
Apple, which is by far the most popular smartwatch maker, is rumored to be making a ruggedized Apple Watch meant for extreme sports and could reveal it later this year. Meanwhile, Google is working on a new smartwatch called the Pixel Watch that's expected to launch in the fall alongside the upcoming Google Pixel 7 to compete with Apple and Samsung's premium watches, though there's no word on Pixel Watch pricing.
It's also not clear what kind of chipset will power the Pixel Watch, so a lot of its capabilities are unknown -- except that it will run Wear OS 3, Google's wearable operating system that integrates parts of Samsung's Tizen OS. That gives it a similar advantage as the Apple Watch: using their own software for a better integration with hardware.
"On the watch side, the problem is that the silicon needs to be tightly integrated with the end product," said Avi Greengart, president and lead analyst at research firm Techsponential. "While Qualcomm has had silicon products with the [Snapdragon] 3100 and 4100, it hasn't been able to tie those with software and hardware in a product consumers want to buy anywhere near what Apple has been able to do."
Despite the competition, Qualcomm's W5 series has features that could pave the way for the next generation of wearables.
Battery, battery, battery
One key feature of Qualcomm's W5 Plus chip is its battery life. The W5 promises longer wear times, but the W5 Plus, with its extra power-saving features, can get up to 24 hours more battery life than before. Given most Apple Watch models won't last longer than a day, and even the leading Wear OS watches last three days at most, getting more battery life is a big deal.
That focus on battery life is also likely why the Snapdragon W5 series doesn't support 5G. The newer cellular technology promises faster web surfing but is still a battery hog. So, for now, any cellular-connected watches will be able to connect only to older, slower 4G LTE networks for mobile service (but don't worry, your music will still stream just fine). Qualcomm declined to comment on when we'd see a wearable with 5G capabilities.
That 4G LTE ceiling also applies to other devices using the W5 too. Facebook's Ray-Ban Stories photo and video-sharing glasses, for example, used the older Snapdragon 4100 chipset, Qualcomm said. Future augmented reality glasses may use the W5, and though they won't have 5G, they would likely benefit from the rest of the chipset's battery efficiencies. That could help make the glasses easier to design with smaller batteries, which are critical for making them look as normal as possible.
W5 Series: An actual Dick Tracy watch?
You may not know it, but Qualcomm chips have supported cameras since 2018. Back then, the company's chip powered the Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, which didn't come with a camera. Only a few smartwatches have come out with the ability to take photos and videos, and they've either launched in China or been designed for kids. Mainstream smartwatches haven't implemented cameras, but Qualcomm thinks that might change with the W5, because it has better battery life that would make taking photos less burdensome.
This includes two-way video calling, a feature that gadget nerds have been dreaming about since the Dick Tracy days, as well as smoother video playback and Memoji-style 3D watch faces, all made possible with cameras on watches.
Qualcomm said it's notched 25 products that are currently being developed with its W5. The first will be the next-generation Oppo Watch coming in August with the W5 chip. Qualcomm said an unnamed TicWatch will be the first to use its W5 Plus, though the chipmaker didn't have any details to share about it, including if it would have a camera. Qualcomm's Kedia also declined to say whether any of the remaining 23 devices were AR glasses.
"I wish I could share the 25 customers in the pipeline -- they bring a whole new meaning to the next-generation wearables," Kedia said.
Apple watch it s been 5 years since my original review and reflect apple watch it s been 5 years since you passed apple watch it s been 5 years since you ve apple watch it s been 5 years since i met apple watch it s been 5 years jamie foxx apple watch it s been 5000 years apple watch it s been 50 years meme apple watch it s been a long day lyrics apple watch series 8
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
Good design is hard. But more and more we all have to do it. Whether it's a nice Facebook banner, a clever profile pic, an eye-catching Instagram post or some well polished ideas for a work presentation, we all want something more than the terrible basic options offered up by Powerpoint.
Enter Canva. The 5-year-old Australian startup is all about offering slick templates through a free service that is exceptionally simple to use. Whether through its website or the apps for iPhone and iPad, it takes just a few seconds to work out how to get started and make something that looks great.
This all sounds like an ad -- simple DIY design sounds too good to be true -- but a quick taste test proves how true the pitch is. And after a slow boil for its first few years, a rapid climb to over 10 million users across 179 countries (Canva says it just passed five designs per second) suggest this is something that is starting to resonate.
Co-founder Melanie Perkins wants to give everyone the tools to make good everyday designs with minimal fuss.
Canva
"Having great quality ingredients for people to work with has been a driving premise behind Canva," says Melanie Perkins, co-founder of Canva. "Before Canva, you'd have to be a professional designer to easily access beautiful stock photography and illustrations. There are template libraries out there, but again, they're only for designers who use professional design software."
While the service is free, Canva makes money through the sale of stock images as well as a "Canva for Work" premium offering that lets a company set brand guidelines and templates to make it easier for people all around a company stick to core design principles without always needing designers to create every document, every presentation or whatever else may be required.
"Social media posts, pitch decks, proposals, marketing materials. Designers are getting spread really thin throughout organisations," says Perkins. "They often have to neglect sales, for example, who often just string their own terribly off brand things together. This really helps to bring brand identity together. Colours, fonts, logos so everybody is on the right track."
Democratising design
Exploring the Canva website, beyond the design tools the company also offers anyone who wants it a crash course in good design. There's a design school blog, design tutorials and a design stream where you can see what other people have been designing and offer likes and comments. Perkins suggests people have been conditioned to think they're just not creative, so they're often afraid to play around.
Canva's usage has been on a rapid rise, now surpassing five designs per second across its web and app platforms.
Canva
When Canva first launched, the company's user research found people were inherently afraid to click things in case they messed something up.
"People were really conscious about not clicking too much and not playing around. But this is meant to be the exact opposite," says Perkins. "So we introduced starter challenges -- put a hat on a monkey, change the colour of a circle, add a background to a page, really basic things. But each step builds confidence."
Offering templates that don't get too repetitive is a big challenge, but Canva has tried to solve for this concern by inviting professional designers to share templates publicly and receive royalties whenever their templates are used by others.
For Perkins, it's the success stories of those who have been using Canva that make her feel like they're achieving their mission. From the story of a small US sheriff's office using Canva to create wanted posters, to the story of a woman who created an image to help track down her birth mother that worked after going viral on Facebook.
Australia's coolest tech company
Canva is fast becoming the proverbial and literal poster child of the Australia startup scene. From humble origins in Perkins' mother's living room and "incubating" in San Francisco food courts, the company is now growing rapidly with a team of over 120 across 3 countries and a latest funding round of AU$19.8M at a valuation of AU$462M.
Canva across the web, iPhone and iPad. "Other platforms" (read Android) are planned for the future.
Canva
The company also provides classic Silicon Valley perks, with an in-house chef, free gym and yoga classes, flexible working conditions and more. It was all enough to land Canva the title of Australia's Coolest Tech Company two years running from job listings website Job Advisor.
"We're in the ridiculously fortunate position that before we took on this latest funding we hadn't spent a dollar from the previous round," says Perkins. "We got the revenues to grow rapidly and everything sort of naturally moving in the right direction."
There's still a lot more to do. Getting apps on Android is an obvious one, but Perkins suggests the company is only scratching the surface of its larger, and far loftier, long term plans.
"If we can become the productivity tool, the productivity platform for the next generation, with all the crazy needs everyone has for visual content they need to create, that would be pretty cool."
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
Rachel Barkman's son started accurately identifying different species of mushroom at the age of 2. Together they'd go out into the mossy woods near her home in Vancouver and forage. When it came to occasionally sharing in her TikTok videos her son's enthusiasm and skill for picking mushrooms, she didn't think twice about it -- they captured a few cute moments, and many of her 350,000-plus followers seemed to like it.
That was until last winter, when a female stranger approached them in the forest, bent down and addressed her son, then 3, by name and asked if he could show her some mushrooms.
"I immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk," Barkman said in an interview this past June.
This incident, combined with research into the dangers of sharing too much, made her reevaluate her son's presence online. Starting at the beginning of this year, she vowed not to feature his face in future content.
"My decision was fueled by a desire to protect my son, but also to protect and respect his identity and privacy, because he has a right to choose the way he is shown to the world," she said.
These kinds of dangers have cropped up alongside the rise in child influencers, such as 10-year-old Ryan Kaji of Ryan's World, who has almost 33 million subscribers, with various estimates putting his net worth in the multiple tens of millions of dollars. Increasingly, brands are looking to use smaller, more niche, micro- and nano-influencers, developing popular accounts on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to reach their audiences. And amid this influencer gold rush there's a strong incentive for parents, many of whom are sharing photos and videos of their kids online anyway, to get in on the action.
The increase in the number of parents who manage accounts for their kids -- child influencers' parents are often referred to as "sharents" -- opens the door to exploitation or other dangers. With almost no industry guardrails in place, these parents find themselves in an unregulated wild west. They're the only arbiters of how much exposure their children get, how much work their kids do, and what happens to money earned through any content they feature in.
Instagram didn't respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it takes any steps to safeguard child influencers. A representative for TikTok said the company has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and pointed to policies to protect accounts of users under the age of 16. But these policies don't apply to parents posting with or on behalf of their children. YouTube didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
"When parents share about their children online, they act as both the gatekeeper -- the one tasked with protecting a child's personal information -- and as the gate opener," said Stacey Steinberg, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of the book Growing Up Shared. As the gate opener, "they benefit, gaining both social and possibly financial capital by their online disclosures."
The reality is that some parents neglect the gatekeeping and leave the gate wide open for any internet stranger to walk through unchecked. And walk through they do.
Meet the sharents
Mollie is an aspiring dancer and model with an Instagram following of 122,000 people. Her age is ambiguous but she could be anywhere from 11-13, meaning it's unlikely she's old enough to meet the social media platform's minimum age requirement. Her account is managed by her father, Chris, whose own account is linked in her bio, bringing things in line with Instagram's policy. (Chris didn't respond to a request for comment.)
You don't have to travel far on Instagram to discover accounts such as Mollie's, where grown men openly leer at preteen girls. Public-facing, parent-run accounts dedicated to dancers and gymnasts -- who are under the age of 13 and too young to have accounts of their own -- number in the thousands. (To protect privacy, we've chosen not to identify Mollie, which isn't her real name, or any other minors who haven't already appeared in the media.)
Parents use these accounts, which can have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, to raise their daughters' profiles by posting photos of them posing and demonstrating their flexibility in bikinis and leotards. The comment sections are often flooded with sexualized remarks. A single, ugly word appeared under one group shot of several young girls in bikinis: "orgy."
Some parents try to contain the damage by limiting comments on posts that attract too much attention. The parent running one dancer account took a break from regular scheduling to post a pastel-hued graphic reminding other parents to review their followers regularly. "After seeing multiple stories and posts from dance photographers we admire about cleaning up followers, I decided to spend time cleaning," read the caption. "I was shocked at how many creeps got through as followers."
But "cleaning up" means engaging in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole to keep unwanted followers at bay, and it ignores the fact that you don't need to be following a public account to view the posts. Photos of children are regularly reposted on fan or aggregator accounts, over which parents have no control, and they can also be served up through hashtags or through Instagram's discovery algorithms.
The simple truth is that publicly posted content is anyone's for the taking. "Once public engagement happens, it is very hard, if not impossible, to really put meaningful boundaries around it," said Leah Plunkett, author of the book Sharenthood and a member of the faculty at Harvard Law School.
This concern is at the heart of the current drama concerning the TikTok account @wren.eleanor. Wren is an adorable blonde 3-year-old girl, and the account, which has 17.3 million followers, is managed by her mother, Jacquelyn, who posts videos almost exclusively of her child.
Concerned onlookers have pointed Jacquelyn toward comments that appear to be predatory, and have warned her that videos in which Wren is in a bathing suit, pretending to insert a tampon, or eating various foodstuffs have more watches, likes and saves than other content. They claim her reluctance to stop posting in spite of their warnings demonstrates she's prioritizing the income from her account over Wren's safety. Jacquelyn didn't respond to several requests for comment.
Last year, the FBI ran a campaign in which it estimated that there were 500,000 predators online every day -- and that's just in the US. Right now, across social platforms, we're seeing the growth of digital marketplaces that hinge on child exploitation, said Plunkett. She doesn't want to tell other parents what to do, she added, but she wants them to be aware that there's "a very real, very pressing threat that even innocent content that they put up about their children is very likely to be repurposed and find its way into those marketplaces."
Naivete vs. exploitation
When parent influencers started out in the world of blogging over a decade ago, the industry wasn't exploitative in the same way it is today, said Crystal Abidin, an academic from Curtin University who specializes in internet cultures. When you trace the child influencer industry back to its roots, what you find is parents, usually mothers, reaching out to one another to connect. "It first came from a place of care among these parent influencers," she said.
Over time, the industry shifted, centering on children more and more as advertising dollars flowed in and new marketplaces formed.
Education about the risks hasn't caught up, which is why people like Sarah Adams, a Vancouver mom who runs the TikTok account @mom.uncharted, have taken it upon themselves to raise the flag on those risks. "My ultimate goal is just have parents pause and reflect on the state of sharenting right now," she said.
But as Mom Uncharted, Adams is also part of a wider unofficial and informal watchdog group of internet moms and child safety experts shedding light on the often disturbing way in which some parents are, sometimes knowingly, exploiting their children online.
The troubling behavior uncovered by Adams and others suggests there's more than naivete at play -- specifically when parents sign up for and advertise services that let people buy "exclusive" or "VIP" access to content featuring their children.
Some parent-run social media accounts that Adams has found linked out to a site called SelectSets, which lets the parents sell photo sets of their children. One account offered sets with titles such as "2 little princesses." SelectSets has described the service as "a classy and professional" option for influencers to monetize content, allowing them to "avoid the stigma often associated with other platforms."
Over the last few weeks, SelectSets has gone offline and no owner could be traced for comment.
In addition to selling photos, many parent-run dancer accounts, Mollie's included, allow strangers to send the dancers swimwear and underwear from the dancers' Amazon wish lists, or money to "sponsor" them to "realize their dream" or support them on their "journeys."
While there's nothing technically illegal about anything these parents are doing, they're placing their children in a gray area that's not explicitly sexual but that many people would consider to be sexualized. The business model of using an Amazon wish list is one commonly embraced by online sugar babies who accept money and gifts from older men.
"Our Conditions of Use and Sale make clear that users of Amazon Services must be 18 or older or accompanied by a parent or guardian," said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement. "In rare cases where we are made aware that an account has been opened by a minor without permission, we close the account."
Adams says it's unlikely to be other 11-year-olds sending their pocket money to these girls so they attend their next bikini modeling shoot. "Who the fuck do you think is tipping these kids?" she said. "It's predators who are liking the way you exploit your child and giving them all the content they need."
Turning points
Plunkett distinguishes between parents who are casually sharing content that features their kids and parents who are sharing for profit, an activity she describes as "commercial sharenting."
"You are taking your child, or in some cases, your broader family's private or intimate moments, and sharing them digitally, in the hope of having some kind of current or future financial benefit," she said.
No matter the parent's hopes or intentions, any time children appear in public-facing social media content, that content has the potential to go viral, and when it does, parents have a choice to either lean in and monetize it or try to rein it in.
During Abidin's research -- in which she follows the changing activities of the same influencers over time -- she's found that many influencer parents reach a turning point. It can be triggered by something as simple as other children at school being aware of their child's celebrity or their child not enjoying it anymore, or as serious as being involved in a car chase while trying to escape fans (an occurrence recounted to Abidin by one of her research subjects).
One influencer, Katy Rose Pritchard, who has almost 92,000 Instagram followers, decided to stop showing her children's faces on social media this year after she discovered they were being used to create role-playing accounts. People had taken photos of her children that she'd posted and used them to create fictional profiles of children for personal gratification, which she said in a post made her feel "violated."
All these examples highlight the different kinds of threats sharents are exposing their children to. Plunkett describes three "buckets" of risk tied to publicly sharing content online. The first and perhaps most obvious are risks involving criminal and/or dangerous behavior, posing a direct threat to the child.
The second are indirect risks, where content posted featuring children can be taken, reused, analyzed or repurposed by people with nefarious motives. Consequences include anything from bullying to harming future job prospects to millions of people having access to children's medical information -- a common trope on YouTube is a video with a melodramatic title and thumbnail involving a child's trip to the hospital, in which influencer parents with sick kids will document their health journeys in blow-by-blow detail.
The third set of risks are probably the least talked about, but they involve potential harm to a child's sense of self. If you're a child influencer, how you see yourself as a person and your ability to develop into an adult is "going to be shaped and in some instances impeded by the fact that your parents are creating this public performance persona for you," said Plunkett.
Often children won't be aware of what this public persona looks like to the audience and how it's being interpreted. They may not even be aware it exists. But at some point, as happened with Barkman, the private world in which content is created and the public world in which it's consumed will inevitably collide. At that point, the child will be thrust into the position of confronting the persona that's been created for them.
"As kids get older, they naturally want to define themselves on their own terms, and if parents have overshared about them in public spaces, that can be difficult, as many will already have notions about who that child is or what that child may like," said Steinberg. "These notions, of course, may be incorrect. And some children may value privacy and wish their life stories were theirs -- not their parents -- to tell."
Savannah and Cole LaBrant have documented nearly everything about their children's lives.
Jim Spellman/WireImage
This aspect of having their real-life stories made public is a key factor distinguishing children working in social media from children working in the professional entertainment industry, who usually play fictional roles. Many children who will become teens and adults in the next couple of decades will have to reckon with the fact that their parents put their most vulnerable moments on the internet for the world to see -- their meltdowns, their humiliation, their most personal moments.
One influencer family, the LaBrants, were forced to issue a public apology in 2019 after they played an April Fools' Day Joke on their 6-year-old daughter Everleigh. The family pretended they were giving her dog away, eliciting tears throughout the video. As a result, many viewers felt that her parents, Sav and Cole, had inflicted unnecessary distress on her.
In the past few months, parents who film their children during meltdowns to demonstrate how to calm them down have found themselves the subject of ire on parenting Subreddits. Their critics argue that it's unfair to post content of children when they're at their most vulnerable, as it shows a lack of respect for a child's right to privacy.
Privacy-centric parenting
Even the staunchest advocates of child privacy know and understand the parental instinct of wanting to share their children's cuteness and talent with the world. "Our kids are the things usually we're the most proud of, the most excited about," said Adams. "It is normal to want to show them off and be proud of them."
When Adams started her account two years ago, she said her views were seen as more polarizing. But increasingly people seem to relate and share her concerns. Most of these are "average parents," naive to the risks they're exposing their kids to, but some are "commercial sharents" too.
Even though they don't always see eye to eye, the private conversations she's had with parents of children (she doesn't publicly call out anyone) with massive social media presences have been civil and productive. "I hope it opens more parents' eyes to the reality of the situation, because frankly this is all just a large social experiment," she said. "And it's being done on our kids. And that just doesn't seem like a good idea."
For Barkman, it's been "surprisingly easy, and hugely beneficial" to stop sharing content about her son. She's more present, and focuses only on capturing memories she wants to keep for herself.
"When motherhood is all consuming, it sometimes feels like that's all you have to offer, so I completely understand how we have slid into oversharing our children," she said. "It's a huge chunk of our identity and our hearts."
But Barkman recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that she doesn't know who's viewing her content and that she can't rely on tech platforms to protect her son. "We are raising a generation of children who have their entire lives broadcast online, and the newness of social media means we don't have much data on the impacts of that reality on children," she said. "I feel better acting with caution and letting my son have his privacy so that he can decide how he wants to be perceived by the world when he's ready and able."
Garmin venu sq review a solid fitness tracker without watch garmin venu sq review a solid fitness tracker without iphone garmin venu sq review a solid is a state garmin venu sq review anime garmin venu sq review article garmin venu sq review air garmin venu sq review atlas garmin venu sq music garmin venu sq user guide garmin venu sq smartwatch garmin venu 2 garmin venu vs vivoactive 4
Garmin Venu Sq review: A solid fitness tracker without the frills
Garmin Venu Sq review: A solid fitness tracker without the frills
The $200 (£179, AU$300) Garmin Venu Sq has almost every fitness- and health-tracking feature you could want in a smartwatch for less than competitors like the Apple Watch ($349 at eBay) and Fitbit Versa 3 ($170 at Target). It has a bright LCD touchscreen, built-in GPS, SpO2 (blood oxygen) tracking and up to six days of battery life, which makes it a compelling buy, especially if you want a watch that's compatible with both Android and iOS.
It's not the most premium-looking smartwatch out there and it misses out on features like a voice assistant and altimeter, but it makes up for it in health and fitness features that elevate it from the rest.
A functional watch without the wow factor
Like the name suggests, the Venu Sq has a square watch face with rounded edges, unlike the original Garmin Venu and almost every other Garmin sports watch with circular designs. Its 1.3-inch color LCD display feels a bit cramped compared to other Garmin watches, but it's clear and easy to read even in bright sunlight and you can keep the screen set to always-on. Having used the larger Garmin Venu for a while, the smaller size of the Venu Sq took a bit of getting used to, especially during workouts when I couldn't see as many stats at a glance and had to scroll to find the right metric like heart rate, which was all the way on the last page.
The overall build quality is sturdy enough thanks to an aluminum bezel, although the plastic case and buttons make it feel like a cheaper watch than it actually is, especially compared to something like the Apple Watch SE ($280 at eBay), Galaxy Watch Active 2 ($200 at Amazon) or Fitbit Versa 3 for example, which all have metal finishes and OLED displays. The Venu Sq has two side buttons: one to start/stop activities and the other to navigate back and forth between menus. Once I figured out which did what, it took me a few days to get completely comfortable using them to navigate the interface.
My biggest complaint with the Venu Sq's design is the vibration motor, which is not particularly strong. Half the time it was the buzzing noise, not the vibration itself, that clued me in on a notification.
Blood oxygen monitor and heart health alerts
Garmin's biggest strength is in health and fitness tracking, with the Venu Sq squarely hitting the mark. It has an SpO2 sensor to identify blood oxygen levels, either as a spot check or automatically throughout the day and night, similar to the $399 Apple Watch Series 6. Although setting it to monitor constantly will reduce battery life a lot faster. It's also hard to find the SpO2 option in the menus and I found that adding it as a widget in the settings is the best way to get it to pop up on your wrist.
Unfortunately I didn't have a pulse oximeter to compare the readings from the Venu Sq to determine accuracy. Either way, it's important to note that the Venu Sq has not been approved to be used as a medical device and should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Always consult with a physician or other qualified health provider about any health-related issues you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
Though the Venu Sq doesn't have an ECG, or electrocardiogram, like the Apple Watch Series 6 and Galaxy Watch 3 ($399 at Amazon), it does give you the option to receive high and low heart rate notifications that will let you know if your heart rate spikes above or falls below what it considers to be a healthy threshold.
The Venu Sq also uses heart rate variability to determine your stress levels, but doesn't really offer much guidance on how to decrease your stress. I found Garmin's Body Battery meter, which takes into account heart rate variability readings, activity levels and sleep, a more accurate representation of how my body was working that day and helped me decide what kind of workout to do and how hard to push myself. It works better than the Stress Management Score in the Fitbit Sense ($240 at Target) that is a bit more difficult to interpret for me.
Garmin also offers breathing rate and estimated VO2 max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body can use during exercise, which can be used to gauge and improve athletic performance. The higher the number, the more fit you are.
Screenshot by Lexy Savvides/CNET
Sleep tracking is also great on the Venu Sq and clearly identifies your sleep stages of REM, deep and light sleep. You'll also be able to see breathing rate and SpO2 levels in the morning. The downside is that the Garmin Connect app doesn't give you any tips on improving your sleep quality. Menstrual cycle tracking is also available on the Venu Sq and like other Garmin watches, it offers pregnancy tracking to log symptoms and monitor baby movement.
The Venu Sq has a range of workouts preloaded onto the watch, including cardio, strength, Pilates and yoga, so you can follow along with a preset routine on your wrist. There aren't any visual cues on the screen though, just text cues, so if you're doing yoga for example, you'll need to know what "standing forward bend pose" or "low lunge pose" means to get the most out of the routine. You can also build your own workout, such as a circuit of weights, a Pilates routine or a run, within the Garmin Connect app and sync them to the watch. There are also over 50 additional Garmin-created workouts you can load.
On top of these preloaded routines, the Venu Sq can track more than 20 different workout types, from the usual running and walking variants to golf and pool swimming. There's also a personal running coach you can use to help you train for a race or to hit a set goal. It doesn't give you personalized feedback on your form or audio cues like the Galaxy Watches ($295 at Amazon), for example, instead it's more a guide for when you should warm up or how long you should run for, displayed on your wrist.
The Venu Sq has built-in GPS, meaning you don't have to rely on your phone for distance tracking when you're outside. Just be warned that it does take at least 30 seconds to lock on to a GPS signal when you are outside (regardless of whether you have your phone with you or not), which seems like an eternity if you're an impatient runner like me who just wants to get on with it. Once it finally locked though, it tracked my route accurately.
The downside is that there is no gyroscope or altimeter on the Venu Sq, so if you need accurate elevation data you'll likely want to look elsewhere. The Garmin Connect app does a good job of clearly showing you all the details after your workout, but it doesn't dive any deeper into metrics than what similarly priced rivals like the Apple Watch SE or Fitbit Versa 3 offer.
Like other Garmin watches, the Venu Sq has Garmin Live Track which lets you share your location with a safety contact when you are doing an outdoor workout. It does however require a cellular connection, so you will need your phone with you to use this feature.
You can customize the options on this screen to show only your favorite workout types to track.
Lexy Savvides/CNET
Just enough smarts for most people
While the Venu Sq is geared towards fitness and health tracking, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll miss out on smartwatch features. Like almost every other watch, the Venu Sq displays notifications from your phone and pings your phone to locate it if you lose it within Bluetooth range. You'll be able to see call notifications come through regardless of which phone you have the watch paired with, but only Android users will be able to decline calls and respond to text messages from the watch with prewritten responses. There is no speaker or mic onboard so you can't use voice-to-text responses.
The Venu Sq runs Garmin's own operating system (Garmin OS) which is not as seamless as that of Apple or Samsung's smartwatches, but I found it to be stable and more responsive than the Fitbit OS. It's faster to sync updates and doesn't experience any lag in selecting menu options or opening apps.
The biggest pain point for me when using the Venu Sq paired with an iPhone ($500 at Best Buy) has been notifications. The Garmin Connect app on iOS doesn't let you filter out what notifications come through on your wrist and simply mirrors whatever notifications you have set up on your phone. It might not be a deal breaker for many, but I like to push only the most important notifications such as calls and text messages to my wrist, rather than everything that my phone shows. Android users get more control over which notifications come through.
Lexy Savvides/CNET
If you want onboard music storage, you'll need to opt for the music edition of the Venu Sq that costs $50 more, which is the version I tested in this review. The Venu Sq Music lets you store music for offline listening from apps like Spotify (with a Premium subscription) or songs you already own. It's also the watch to get for faster data transfers as it has Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity, whereas the regular Venu Sq only uses Bluetooth.
Garmin has plenty of watch faces to choose from, including third-party options to help personalize the look, plus a fairly wide selection of apps through the Connect IQ Store (a separate app you need to download on your phone). You can also make contactless payments with Garmin Pay on all versions of the watch. The main Garmin Connect app is where you see all your stats and change settings on the watch, while the Connect IQ Store is for adding apps and watch faces.
The Venu Sq, however, lacks a voice assistant, a feature that by now has become standard for most of its similarly priced competitors. This might not be a deal-breaker for you, but it means you miss out hands-free voice control, which I like.
A week's worth of battery life
The Venu Sq has great battery life and you can get up to six days worth of use before you'll need to charge it up, though that number may start to whittle down if you're using it for a lot of GPS workouts, listening to music or continuously tracking your blood oxygen levels. Garmin quotes up to eight hours of battery when playing back music, 14 hours if you are using it in GPS mode, or up to six hours with GPS and music playback.
A great fitness watch without extra bells and whistles
If you're willing to sacrifice a few smart features for better health and fitness tracking, the Garmin Venu Sq is a solid choice that works with Android or iOS. That said, I do wish that Garmin wouldn't charge the extra $50 for the music version, as it does alter the value proposition quite a bit, particularly if you are an iPhone user who might also be considering the Apple Watch SE which, at that point doesn't cost you that much more.
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up
I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.
The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.
There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.
I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay.
I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.
The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.
My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.
The gold Apple Watch, way back when.
James Martin/CNET
An excellent design, with luxury overtones
Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.
The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.
Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.
The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered.
Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.
A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.
Sarah Tew
New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display
All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.
As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.
Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.
The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.
The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.
Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.
The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.
Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.
Sarah Tew
Lots of features. Too many features?
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.
There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.
I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.
Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.
Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day.
Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.
The rings were the beginning.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning
The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others.
I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.
There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.
The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.
You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.
Sarah Tew
It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory
Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.
One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.
That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).
Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.
The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.
Sarah Tew/CNET
Today: the best watch in a war of attrition
You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.
I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.
The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).
Sarah Tew
In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.
The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.
What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.
