or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple-built wearable computers seen as long-term replacement for iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple-built wearable computers seen as long-term replacement for iPhone

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
While Apple probably won't get into the watch making business in the immediate future, one analyst believes that wearable computers could ultimately replace the iPhone in the long term, much like the iPhone has replaced the iPod.

Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray issued a note to investors on Wednesday tackling the possibility of wearable computers in Apple's future. The note was issued in response to an unlikely rumor that claimed Apple is working with Intel to build a "smart watch" accessory that would tap into high-end iPhone functions including voice calls.

Munster doesn't see a hypothetical Apple watch debuting any sooner than 2014, but he does believe that wearable computers could replace the iPhone and smartphones in general over the next 10-plus years.

"We believe technology could progress to a point where consumers have a tablet plus wearable computers, like watches or glasses, that enable simple things like voice calls, texting, quick searches, navigation, etc. through voice control," Munster wrote. "Longer term, screens in glasses or projectors could replace the necessity of a screen from a smartphone or tablet."

These devices could eventually prove to be cheaper to manufacture than the iPhone, Munster believes, which could prove to be the company's "best answer to addressing emerging markets."

Watch


But Apple isn't expected to begin selling any wearable computing devices in the immediate future. That's where Munster sees Apple leveraging its Made for iPhone program to fill the gap for early adopters.

"We believe the company could utilize its MFi program to benefit other companies making wearable devices," he said. "Examples could include clothing, shoes, belts, earrings, bracelets, hats, etc."

He sees clothing and accessories providing information such as body temperature, steps taken, calories burned, blood sugar and more to a device like an iPhone.

Some basic wearable computers compatible with the iPhone are already available for purchase. Last week, AppleInsider took a first look at the MetaWatch, a third-party accessory that receives phone call and text message alerts from the iPhone, as well as information such as calendar entries and weather.
post #2 of 41
That is one ugly watch
post #3 of 41
Not sure who's worse: DigiTimes or Gene Muster. lol.gif
post #4 of 41
Do we even have a reliable heart rate monitor that works with iPhone yet (Bluetooth 4.0)?
post #5 of 41
Since most young people in my neighborhood always walk around staring at their phones now I would say we already have wearable phones.
post #6 of 41
I agree that in the future we'll see more wearable technology.

Apple was ahead of the game with the last Nano yet they sadly abandoned that form factor.

If only they added Bluetooth, simple notifications, and allowed you to keep the watch "on". The Nano would have been a better device than all these other "smart" watch posers.
post #7 of 41
ScotteVest already has this wired, so to speak. They sell vests, jackets, and other clothes with special pockets for iPods, iPhones, and even iPads. The clothing has loops inside it to run your earbuds up through the clothes -- no external wires. The pockets allow access to your iPhone or whatever without pulling it out.

Almost invisible. And better than Dick Tracy style watches that cause problems for people with skin allergies.
post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


.....Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray issued a note to investors on Wednesday tackling the possibility of wearable computers in Apple's future....

 

 

This just in...Gene Munster watched the Star Trek marathon over the New Year holiday and predicts all devices seen on the show will become reality in the future...

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #9 of 41

I don't see this "wearable" stuff catching on, particularly not glasses, except with hardcore nerd-geeks. Maybe we'll see phones being replaced or augmented by "combadges" (although, we already have this with bluetooth headsets), but, we'll still carry around computers in our pockets. Most people just don't want to wear gadgets. And, even though I've joked about Dick Tracy watches, I don't think they'll become all the rage.

post #10 of 41
Because people LOVE wearing glasses.
post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

 

 

This just in...Gene Munster watched the Star Trek marathon over the New Year holiday and predicts all devices seen on the show will become reality in the future...

 

Well, if he had, he wouldn't have made this prediction.

post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

If only they added Bluetooth, simple notifications, and allowed you to keep the watch "on". The Nano would have been a better device than all these other "smart" watch posers.

Maybe it will appear as a new product, not an iPod.

 

Have faith. :)

post #13 of 41
People who complain about Apple's obsession with thinness, I think they are deliberately pushing the boundaries to get us to wearable tech.
post #14 of 41
All right, Dick Tracy is finally going to happen.
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

Since most young people in my neighborhood always walk around staring at their phones now I would say we already have wearable phones.

Yell at them to get off yer lawn.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

Because people LOVE wearing glasses.

Not to single out your comment, but iti s common and always brings on thoughts like these:

Better to wear sunglasses when it's sunny, reading glasses when you're over 50, corrective lenses when you're nearsighted, polarized glasses when you're watching 3D.

They're tools, like earbuds and headphones. Or gloves and shoes. I don't get the hostility to vision augmenters. Maybe it's vanity. But then, many people wear sunglasses out of something like vanity.

Anyway, we NEED Apple's version of stereovision wearable screens as soon as possible. Stereovision will be helpful in teaching language, reading, all kinds of art, plus it will be a new form of empathic communication. Helpful for post-traumatic stress therapy, autism, Alzheimer's, other cognitive challenges. Not to mention the most fun interface for looking at 3D webcams from around the world.

My wife and I were just talking about how watching 3D movies affect your dreams. More close detail, color, and definitely "stereo dream vision." These media technology changes are not trivial, and not to be resisted for non-serious reasons.
Edited by Flaneur - 1/2/13 at 9:10am
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

People who complain about Apple's obsession with thinness, I think they are deliberately pushing the boundaries to get us to wearable tech.

This is a very good point.
post #18 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Not to single out your comment, but iti s common and always brings on thoughts like these:
Better to wear sunglasses when it's sunny, reading glasses when you're over 50, corrective lenses when you're nearsighted, polarized glasses when you're watching 3D.
They're tools, like earbuds and headphones. Or gloves and shoes. I don't get the hostility to vision augmenters. Maybe it's vanity. But then, many people wear sunglasses out of something like vanity.
Anyway, we NEED Apple's version of stereovision wearable screens as soon as possible. Stereovision will be helpful in teaching language, reading, all kinds of art, plus it will be a new form of empathic communication. Helpful for post-traumatic stress therapy, autism, Alzheimer's, other cognitive challenges. Not to mention the most fun interface for looking at 3D webcams from around the world.
My wife and I were just talking about how watching 3D movies affect your dreams. More close detail, color, and definitely "stereo dream vision." These media technology changes are not trivial, and not to be resisted for non-serious reasons.

 

They are going to be "resisted" because people don't want to adopt them. Telling us that we ought to want to doesn't change that. Glasses are simply a pain to wear, it has nothing to do with vanity.

post #19 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Maybe it will appear as a new product, not an iPod.

Have faith. 1smile.gif

This too. A nano that pops up out of the wristband and takes stills and videos is in the works.

I'm sure of it.
post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They are going to be "resisted" because people don't want to adopt them. Telling us that we ought to want to doesn't change that. Glasses are simply a pain to wear, it has nothing to do with vanity.

Ok, it also has to do with what you are used to. And what you gain by wearing them.

Glasses are nice to wear when you can't see well without them. They will be nice to wear when you get an immersive 3D view of someplace you've never been to.

Of course you will not wear them all the time. You don't want to be doing a lot of things all the time either, but you'd better do them at least sometime during your life. Or your day.

I'm not really saying you OUGHT to want to wear glasses, I'm saying you WILL want to. Or, in other words, knee-jerk resistence against glasses is irrational, like being anti-headphones.

Telling Apple to stop development of their stereo eyeglasses . . . the very idea . . .
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Do we even have a reliable heart rate monitor that works with iPhone yet (Bluetooth 4.0)?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Wahoo-Fitness-Heart-Strap-iPhone/dp/B006NZH0TU

 

http://www.amazon.com/60beat-BLUE-Heart-Monitor-iPhone/dp/B0096DM3ES/ref=pd_sbs_sg_4

 

I think the Nike Fuel is pretty neat but it's not a heart rate monitor...not sure you can reliably from that kind of loose, comfortable, wrist device.

post #22 of 41

A gentleman posted a video a few years ago on "wearable technology." He was using existing equipment. He had it in a glasses type display. If you looked at something, say writing, it would automatically offer to find more information out for you. Same for a UPS code. I believe it was also an "always on" camera and video recorder. The video may have looped after a certain amount of time. It did look like it had potential for new applications.

post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Ok, it also has to do with what you are used to. And what you gain by wearing them.
Glasses are nice to wear when you can't see well without them. They will be nice to wear when you get an immersive 3D view of someplace you've never been to.
Of course you will not wear them all the time. You don't want to be doing a lot of things all the time either, but you'd better do them at least sometime during your life. Or your day.
I'm not really saying you OUGHT to want to wear glasses, I'm saying you WILL want to. Or, in other words, knee-jerk resistence against glasses is irrational, like being anti-headphones.
Telling Apple to stop development of their stereo eyeglasses . . . the very idea . . .

 

It's not that glasses are nice to wear when you can't see without them, it's that they are necessary. They still suck, a point that the popularity of contacts (including multifocal contacts) and lasik surgery attest to. People, even those with poor eyesight, don't usually want to wear glasses, they wear them because they have to. And not only are they a pain to wear, they are a pain to carry around (e.g., reading glasses), so much so that many people don't carry them around, even when they need to.

 

And, just how often are people going to need, "an immersive 3D view of someplace," they've not been to? Not very often. Not often enough that they are going to carry around, or even buy, some special glasses to do that. Not wanting to carry around or wear something that's uncomfortable and gets in your way isn't, "knee-jerk resistance," it's human nature. Glasses are an idea that is DOA.

post #24 of 41
Resistance is futile.

Seriously, it would be crazy for me to say that everybody will be wearing their phone or pod screens, but I would say that stereo glasses will have about the same level of adoption, maybe a bit more, as ear buds.

Wired ear buds are an enormous hassle compared to glasses, but they are worth it because you can handle your calls better, to say nothing about listening to music.

Different people have different tolerances for accessories and tools. I do know people who can't keep track of their glasses, or they abuse them terribly, scratching the lenses, snagging the temples, etc. But count the number of people you see wearing glasses and sunglasses and maybe earbuds during a day. Then we'll talk about glasses being an idea that is DOA.

As for wanting to virtually visit a place in 3D where you've never been before, I imagine there will be an endless appetite for that. But I'm only imagining, something I am prone to do.
post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Resistance is futile. ...

 

There won't be any need for resistance, there simply won't be any adoption, it's DOA.

post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Resistance is futile.
Seriously, it would be crazy for me to say that everybody will be wearing their phone or pod screens, but I would say that stereo glasses will have about the same level of adoption, maybe a bit more, as ear buds.

Apple's version of a Glass project would seem more appropriate to movie watching IMO. Their patent describes beaming the images directly to both eyes, replacing what you would naturally see with a completely different or at a least minimally augmented view. Seems more problematic and potentially dangerous for walking or travel, but certainly good for watching media.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 41
I'm waiting for a shoe phone.
post #28 of 41
Steve Balmer weighed in and said 'we're coming out with one too - only ours will have a keyboard that attaches to your forearm.'
post #29 of 41
Originally Posted by Stourque View Post
I'm waiting for a shoe phone.

 

I actually have one. No idea where it is; probably the attic.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #30 of 41
Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
Not to mention more but can someone show me a bonus that makes since on it.
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't see this "wearable" stuff catching on, particularly not glasses, except with hardcore nerd-geeks. Maybe we'll see phones being replaced or augmented by "combadges" (although, we already have this with bluetooth headsets), but, we'll still carry around computers in our pockets. Most people just don't want to wear gadgets. And, even though I've joked about Dick Tracy watches, I don't think they'll become all the rage.

 

Just pointing out, but this was EXACTLY what was said about tablets about 10-15 years ago when the XP Tablet edition slates were on or coming on the market.

 

Then came the iPad.  And even while the iPad was in development and just a rumor, people were saying, "Oh, nobody wants to carry around a tablet, that will never catch on."

post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.

 


Cell phones have had a clock on them since they launched, and I, like many, many others, still wear a watch.  It's more convenient to glance at your wrist than pull out your phone.  It's also easier and less noticeable to do so in a social or business meeting.

 

As for harder to control, you already control your cell phone with one hand most of the time (the exceptions being typing and some games).  Usually you hold the phone with one hand and control with the other.

 

People would not put the watch up to their ear, either.  They would either pair a bluetooth receiver or use speakerphone.

 

Finally, take a look at flexible LCD technology that's on the verge of a widespread launch.  Now pair that with a wide wristband and you have a device approximately the same width as a men's wristwatch at its widest with the same screen real estate as an iPhone 5 with no restriction on movement.

post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by jai151 View Post

 

Just pointing out, but this was EXACTLY what was said about tablets about 10-15 years ago when the XP Tablet edition slates were on or coming on the market.

 

Then came the iPad.  And even while the iPad was in development and just a rumor, people were saying, "Oh, nobody wants to carry around a tablet, that will never catch on."

 

Well, since you don't usually attach tablets to your face, I don't think you can really assert that it's at all analogous. But, applying your logic, we should assume that anything "people" (which I guess means "anyone" in this context) say won't catch on will? As far as I can tell, that's your entire argument.

 

Besides, I don't recall anyone saying that tablets will never catch on. The way I remember it was that everyone was waiting eagerly for a tablet they'd want to use. You know, one that wasn't a Microsoft desktop OS shoved onto a tablet. Just pointing out that revisionist history doesn't lend credibility to a bad argument.

post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple's version of a Glass project would seem more appropriate to movie watching IMO. Their patent describes beaming the images directly to both eyes, replacing what you would naturally see with a completely different or at a least minimally augmented view. Seems more problematic and potentially dangerous for walking or travel, but certainly good for watching media.

 

And, in that sense, strictly as an entertainment device used in the home, glasses, or something like them, may gain some currency. But, as devices people wear around while navigating the world, while it's a nerd-geek's wet dream, it's never going to be widely adopted.

post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Well, since you don't usually attach tablets to your face, I don't think you can really assert that it's at all analogous. But, applying your logic, we should assume that anything "people" (which I guess means "anyone" in this context) say won't catch on will? As far as I can tell, that's your entire argument.

 

Besides, I don't recall anyone saying that tablets will never catch on. The way I remember it was that everyone was waiting eagerly for a tablet they'd want to use. You know, one that wasn't a Microsoft desktop OS shoved onto a tablet. Just pointing out that revisionist history doesn't lend credibility to a bad argument.

 

"Attaching to your face" is irrelevant.  There are more and better locations for wearable tech, not to mention people ALREADY use bluetooth headsets which are exactly the same amount of attachment.

 

But no, what I'm saying is dismissiveness is pointless.  You have no basis to say it won't catch on, less even than the ones who said tablets won't (Of which there were plenty, regardless of your convenient memory lapse).

 

And did you ever use XP Tablet?  No, wait, I can answer that for you.  No, you didn't.  Because it was not just a desktop OS shoved onto a tablet, it was excellent.  I still have my XP tablet and nothing currently on the market can run a full feature tablet as well.  But a lot of that is because Apple decided not to include a pen or, more importantly, an active digitizer.

 

And all of this is secondary to the fact that if Apple puts it out, people will buy it.  Look at the iPad mini, for god's sake.  That thing is a train wreck, but people still buy them.
 

post #37 of 41
Originally Posted by jai151 View Post

Look at the iPad mini, for god's sake.  That thing is a train wreck, but people still buy them.

 

Given your context, I'd like to ask your reason for thinking this.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Given your context, I'd like to ask your reason for thinking this.

 


Awkward size, old technology, and tepid to negative reviews.

post #39 of 41
Originally Posted by jai151 View Post
Awkward size, old technology, and tepid to negative reviews.

 

Haven't seen the latter, myself. And I don't think the use of an A5 is a point against it, but that's me.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by jai151 View Post



Cell phones have had a clock on them since they launched, and I, like many, many others, still wear a watch.  It's more convenient to glance at your wrist than pull out your phone.  It's also easier and less noticeable to do so in a social or business meeting.

As for harder to control, you already control your cell phone with one hand most of the time (the exceptions being typing and some games).  Usually you hold the phone with one hand and control with the other.

People would not put the watch up to their ear, either.  They would either pair a bluetooth receiver or use speakerphone.

Finally, take a look at flexible LCD technology that's on the verge of a widespread launch.  Now pair that with a wide wristband and you have a device approximately the same width as a men's wristwatch at its widest with the same screen real estate as an iPhone 5 with no restriction on movement.
Who wants the screen bent, there is a reason why it has left televisions. Not to mention how it does when wrapped on a arm, this is still downhill. One handed control to you might be nice, but the OS would suffer, many apps use the 6 axis sensors which is horrible when you haft to move your arm, taking videos possible but a good angle hard to get, FaceTime is same, this would be bad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple-built wearable computers seen as long-term replacement for iPhone