or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's rumored 'iWatch' said to have different screen sizes for men, women
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's rumored 'iWatch' said to have different screen sizes for men, women - Page 2

post #41 of 81

Interesting!  And straight from the mouth of a mountain goat in Switzerland:  Rolex have decided to licence the iWatch from Apple.

27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
27" iMac, i7 2.8G CPU, 16 GB, 2TB Hd, Radeon HD 4850,  MacBookPro 13",  iPad2 64Gb, 2 x  iPhone4S 32Gb, 1 x 64Gb iPhone5S, 1Tb TimeCap,  2 x Apple TV.   Got my AAPL when they were $12.50 each.
Reply
post #42 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

I wonder if gadget fatigue will soon set in. I recently consolidated the two iPhones I was carrying into one and found it delightful. One less device to worry about. This iWatch will mean yet another thing to remember when we go out. Some may say, "Why bother?"

Apple has to get a younger generation, many of who use their cell phone as a watch, to begin to wear watches again. And that's not dealing the fact that young adults soon be hit with outlandish (for their age) Obamacare payments on top of paying back those college loans and getting stuck in dead-end jobs for years after graduation.

Apple may need to change its marketing target from Young Actives at Play to Old Geezers with Money. Show them glancing at that iWatch as they board their private jets.

The iwatch modality will be the '.5' device... really the 'iphone shuffle' sort of  device.  Works in concert with your other devices, does a very specific set of ancillary jobs (my guess... think shuffle that can do M7 sort of data gathering, display imessage/calendar/notifications, and gather biotelemetry (HR, BP, ideally some blood electrolytes).   And talks to another iDevice via some lowpower BT or other network method when in range to sync up/xfer telemetry data and the next set of iRadio tunes for your workout.

 

It will be less 'another device' than 'an idevice enhancement unit'

post #43 of 81

DisplaySearch knows their stuff and I would tend to believe them. 

 

However, the quote The "iWatch" is rumored to carry a wide array of biometric sensors, and many believe it will function as a stand-alone product, rather than be dependent upon another Apple device in the way Samsung's Galaxy Gear smartwatch is."  doesn't appear to be attributed to anyone.

 

The claim that it will function as a stand-alone device seems a bit far-fetched, unless it can't operate as a phone when in 'stand-alone' mode.  Anyone know who is making these claims and their validity?

post #44 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

There are only a few million people who buy luxury watches in the world. But they also are the wealthiest.

The LUXURY watch market ALONE - lead by Rolex and Omega - is a $16 BILLION market.

This is larger than the movie industry. And this is close to the size of the video game market.

As a NICHE market, it is substantial. The leaders only have to sell a few thousand watches. And the buyers are those Apple is interested in - the affluent consumers.

And if Apple were able to generalize the sales to a larger set of consumers - to include sport watches, Timex watches, etc., particularly with a higher price point similar to the iPod - then it stands to make a substantial amount of money.

Certainly it is a potentially LARGER amount of profit than Apple would gain from AppleTV.

This is the motivation behind the iWatch.

From an August 2012 Report

 

Despite the continued posting of losses in the US market, according to a Reuters report, the gaming industry is projected to hit $70 billion, globally, up from $65 billion in 2011.

post #45 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

The iwatch modality will be the '.5' device... really the 'iphone shuffle' sort of  device.  Works in concert with your other devices, does a very specific set of ancillary jobs (my guess... think shuffle that can do M7 sort of data gathering, display imessage/calendar/notifications, and gather biotelemetry (HR, BP, ideally some blood electrolytes).   And talks to another iDevice via some lowpower BT or other network method when in range to sync up/xfer telemetry data and the next set of iRadio tunes for your workout.

 

It will be less 'another device' than 'an idevice enhancement unit'

 

Interesting details, but my point remains. It's one more thing to remember before I go out the door. We live in a much more complicated world when that list was: 1. Wallet, 2. Keys. At some point people will begin to say, "Enough!"

post #46 of 81

iWatch and iWait...  

post #47 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandabble View Post

I think one of the main problems with the watch is it takes both hands to use it. One to roll it over and in one to press a button. I've gotten used to my iPhone where I carry in one pocket with one hand and can do what I need to do … with one hand

 

Thats why they should do iGlove.

 

The screen would be on your palm.

Moving your fingers would navigate

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #48 of 81

For an "iWatch" to succeed, it has to come in flavors (not just colors, but styles) that appeal to someone's personal sense of taste. Most people today buy watches for the fashion not the function and they buy sports wrist bands for the function, not necessarily the fashion.

 

Furthermore, shoehorning apps onto a device of this type (or even a TV for that matter) doesn't make them "smart", it makes them cumbersome and they usually end up with a horrible user interface and experience (e.g. Galaxy Gear); functions and interface need to be refined and deliberate and make sense for the product they're designed for.

 

1. It'll be a device with time, motion, proximity, and bio based features. 

2. It will be able to connect to a mobile device to gain access to databases and specific apps, and receive and display "context- based" information and notifications that someone can quickly glance at.

 

 

Anyone who tries to make a "smart" watch do anything more than that, will fail. Plain and simple. A mobile phone or computer on your wrist will only appeal to the geekiest of geeks.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #49 of 81

A number of things I find wrong here.

 

1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.

 

2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.

 

3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?

post #50 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100 View Post
 

 

I could not agree with you more. It's baseless speculation -- and a little insulting -- that it'll be separated for genders. That's simply not helpful at all.

Right except that there is a long history of segmenting the watch market by gender, especially at the high end of the market.  But I agree that Apple would likely be more subtle about it (not calling the two sizes M and F).

post #51 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post
 

A number of things I find wrong here.

 

1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.

 

2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.

 

3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?

 

2.  iPad air, iPad mini.  The iWatch will not require fiddly multi-finger input, so the size won't matter.

 

3.  The iWatch won't be (primarily) a watch (which is why it probably won't be called that, Apple trademark notwithstanding).  The fact that most people don't wear watches is a plus for Apple--they don't have to displace anything; wrists are available.  

 

10 years ago (15?) what percentage of people in the US (or the world) carried a cell phone with them wherever they went?  Now that number is approaching 100%.  And that's because of smart phones (the iPhone specifically and the copycat Android), not because using the telephone became so much more important.  Having something strapped to your wrist (or pinned to your clothing) is a natural evolution of carrying of a brick of glass, metal, and plastic everywhere. Look ahead 10-20 years and I bet the current form factor of phones/smart phones will have vanished.

post #52 of 81
Different size for woman and men? Perhaps different sizes for those who like big and small watches, no matter the gender. Please, don't make this a gender thing 1smile.gif
post #53 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I don't see it either. I think this is a niche market and too small to have any effect.

Exactly.  A toy project for TC.

post #54 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandabble View Post

I think one of the main problems with the watch is it takes both hands to use it. One to roll it over and in one to press a button. I've gotten used to my iPhone where I carry in one pocket with one hand and can do what I need to do … with one hand

SIRI controller?

post #55 of 81
I think all the analysts and journalists who started rumors should start a company since they were so innovative and resourceful. Consider calling iRumor or iIdiot inc
post #56 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

A number of things I find wrong here.

1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.

2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.

3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?

My feeling is it will be a watch in much the same way the iPhone is a "phone" ie much more than that. If it can warn people of health problems etc if could sell in the hundreds of millions. It will probably be also used to trace people or as an emergency call mechanism - transmitting the location to the police. ( true a phone can do this big you need to get it out of your pocket. ) making the person seem safer could be the killer app.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #57 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

The LUXURY watch market ALONE - lead by Rolex and Omega - is a $16 BILLION market...

... the leaders only have to sell a few thousand watches.

 

I'm trying to reconcile the two previous statements found within your post.  It sounds like you're talking about million dollar watches.

 

Thompson

post #58 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

2.  iPad air, iPad mini.  The iWatch will not require fiddly multi-finger input, so the size won't matter.

3.  The iWatch won't be (primarily) a watch (which is why it probably won't be called that, Apple trademark notwithstanding).  The fact that most people don't wear watches is a plus for Apple--they don't have to displace anything; wrists are available.  

10 years ago (15?) what percentage of people in the US (or the world) carried a cell phone with them wherever they went?  Now that number is approaching 100%.  And that's because of smart phones (the iPhone specifically and the copycat Android), not because using the telephone became so much more important.  Having something strapped to your wrist (or pinned to your clothing) is a natural evolution of carrying of a brick of glass, metal, and plastic everywhere. Look ahead 10-20 years and I bet the current form factor of phones/smart phones will have vanished.

I am not going to enjoy videos on my watch, or read a book. So no.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #59 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post
 

A number of things I find wrong here.

 

1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.

 

2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.

 

3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?

Agree with the first two comments, but I disagree with the implication of the third.

 

The reason people don't wear watches anymore is because their function has been made irrelevant by the fact that everyone carries a smartphone and so doesn't need to wear a time piece.  The traditional watch function has been superseded.  

 

Now, if someone were to make an object that fits on the wrist but serves useful functions that are unique, then I don't see a reason why people wouldn't start wearing said object.  It's not like the majority of people suddenly decided that watches were ugly or bad in any way.   My hunch is that most people are agnostic about watches, but they just don't wear them because there is no need.

 

If Apple provides a new "need", then people will start wearing them.  Apple can create a new market.  Again.

 

Thompson

post #60 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I don't see it either. I think this is a niche market and too small to have any effect.

How can you say that when you don't know what it is?

You don't know what it does.

You don't know how much it costs.

 

What if it cost $99 dollars and stopped aging?  Still a niche market?

What if it cost 99 cents and made your farts smell like roses?  Still a niche market?

post #61 of 81

Made of plastic and comes in six colors...

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #62 of 81

1. gives notifications from you phone

2. tracts walking, calories burned, ect

3. Use to open/start car

4. Use to unarm/arm home security

5. use as music player with wireless headphones

 

those features alone would make this a $299 device

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #63 of 81

A hypothetical iWatch does not necessarily need two hands to operate.

It could employ gestures to interact with notifications or answer calls.(think turning a door knob or knocking)

Also just raising your arm up quickly to your mouth could be used to invoke Siri.

post #64 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

1. gives notifications from you phone

2. tracts walking, calories burned, ect

3. Use to open/start car

4. Use to unarm/arm home security

5. use as music player with wireless headphones

 

those features alone would make this a $299 device

Combine an iWatches with iBeacons to enable accurate tracking and interaction with your environment.

post #65 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Made of plastic and comes in six colors...

Made of plastic and comes in six colors... $299 & $399

Made of stainless steel and comes in space gray or gold... $499 & $599

post #66 of 81

Potential owners are going to get tired of charging their iWatches every night after being used to 5-year battery longevity on quartz watches.

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #67 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post
 

Potential owners are going to get tired of charging their iWatches every night after being used to 5-year battery longevity on quartz watches.

An inductive charging pad would address that. At least for those like myself who don't wear their watches in bed. You've got to put it down somewhere so why not on a  charging pad?

 

My Casio's are solar charged and my analog is self winding. Haven't dealt with batteries in decades.

post #68 of 81

Keep the f'in thing.

post #69 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post
 

Potential owners are going to get tired of charging their iWatches every night after being used to 5-year battery longevity on quartz watches.

They said the same thing about the iPhone.

A typical clamshell feature phone only needed to be charged once a week.

 

You could make the same argument about electric cars and you'd be wrong.

 

If you love your iWatch and it greatly improves your life, you won't mind recharging it daily.

post #70 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

How can you say that when you don't know what it is?
You don't know what it does.
You don't know how much it costs.

What if it cost $99 dollars and stopped aging?  Still a niche market?
What if it cost 99 cents and made your farts smell like roses?  Still a niche market?

I'm pretty sure it won't be those two options. You're right, we don't know what we don't know.
post #71 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post
 

A typical clamshell feature phone only needed to be charged once a week.

Yep. With a battery perhaps 10 times the size of a watch one :no:

Inductive charging might work - you could throw the watch on a mat when you get in the door.

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #72 of 81

The one thing anyone who knows this space can agree on is that it won't work without having a 'wow' style factor. Why else would the last two executive hires by Apple be from the fashion industry?

That's why I think this is real, and not a 'ruse'. (Plus the simple fact that wear-ables is clearly the next frontier.)

 

But whoever proposed this rumor of smaller watches for women clearly has no awareness of style. Women who wear watches are essentially wearing men's watches now. The itsy-bitsy jewelry watches are very 50's.

post #73 of 81
Even though my iPhone "lives" on my hip, I wear a watch because all I need to do these the time is lift my arm. Now, imagine that I could just touch my watch (to validate a transaction) and then wave it at a sensor. Is there any easier way to make a payment? And that's beside other obvious functions for a device strapped directly to a (part of a) body.
post #74 of 81
This rumor may get Samsung to make a new one now, 1.8 inch screen, then release a mini and say it will be bigger than apples in any case.
post #75 of 81
I'm hoping that this will be THE NEXT BIG THING from Apple that will bitch-slap S*scum down HARD!
post #76 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post
 

But whoever proposed this rumor of smaller watches for women clearly has no awareness of style. Women who wear watches are essentially wearing men's watches now. The itsy-bitsy jewelry watches are very 50's.

 

With the exception of Swatch, all the watch sites I just checks all had sections for ladies'/women's watches.  They aren't tiny, but they aren't the blocks of metal and glass they pitch to men.

post #77 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by scades View Post

Even though my iPhone "lives" on my hip, I wear a watch because all I need to do these the time is lift my arm. Now, imagine that I could just touch my watch (to validate a transaction) and then wave it at a sensor. Is there any easier way to make a payment? And that's beside other obvious functions for a device strapped directly to a (part of a) body.

 

Exactly.  Or activate a subway gate or airport security or enter your own house or car without having to do anything other than hold out your hand.  And much more secure than a phone.  Sure someone can take it from you at gun point, but they can't snatch it from your hand as happens on every public transit system in the country every day.

post #78 of 81

Exactly. I've always pictured the so-called iWatch as an iPod (nano) natural evolution, as you suggest.

Main features: music playback in a wireless, casual, worry free, weightless and elegant way, with bluetooth headphones. Also health/fitness centered features (heart monitor, pedometer, activity tracker, much like a Nike Fuelband) and there you go. No video, no camera. It should be small and light enough to be stylish and desirable.

If it's not a standalone product I don't see the need/desire to own one (Galaxy Gear anyone?) Notifications? Why? We all see them pop-up in our iPhone screens all the time. That should be a complimentary feature whenever such device pairs with the phone.

I think the main reason for an iWatch (other than actually checking the time), should be leisure and fitness, cable free.

At this point I think very few people want another gadget to worry about (charging, leaving it on a table, etc) to create more problems instead of solving them. So one critical point will be battery life.

We'll have to wait and see when (if) Apple unveils such baby.

post #79 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

I truly wish -- if the watch happens -- that Apple will de-genderize the categories to say "Large Wrist" and "Small Wrist." They can sell more watches, to large-wristed women and small-wrested men.

 

If you have wrists like mine, a 1.7" watch looks like a dinner plate attached to my arm.:\

That's one of the reasons my initial reaction to this post was "bullshit". Apple never, as far as I can recall, ever assigns gender tags to any of their products. I don't think they would even go so far as large wrist/small wrist. I think they would simply list them, with an option to compare models like they do with iPhone, iPad, and all of their portables and desktops.
I'm certain that Apple has developed a watch style device, but it was probably years ago already. Based on their recent hires, I would have a hard time believing that's all they have up their sleeve, so to speak.
What do we really have from this article?

David Hsieh- the guy with a pretty good track record (according to Shane Cole, without any citations) of "accurately predicting Apple's moves in the field", says Apple is shopping for flexible displays in the 1.3" and 1.7" sizes.
The other guy quoted, "Noted analyst Ming-Chi Kuo" "who has a proven track record in accurately predicting Apple's product rollouts" (according to Mikey Campbellalso without citation) Said half a year ago that he expects the iWatch to be on sale in about a year.
The other piece of the story quoted an unnamed "expert" claiming that LG was nearing an agreement to supply displays for the obviously imminent iWatch.

My takeaway is that if what these guys heard is true, apple is shopping for displays. Assuming this is true, it would be very unApple of Apple to go shopping to suppliers, and tell them what the components they want quotes on are for, instead of just giving them specs of what they want. The Men's/Womens iWatch part of the story is laughable.

 

"We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic."
-Susan Jeffers
Reply
"We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic."
-Susan Jeffers
Reply
post #80 of 81
If in future like to buy iwatch .but how long will be pending? Cannot bear so longer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's rumored 'iWatch' said to have different screen sizes for men, women