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.
Keep the f'in thing.
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.
johnny mozzarella wrote: »
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?
Yep. With a battery perhaps 10 times the size of a watch one
Inductive charging might work - you could throw the watch on a mat when you get in the door.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Campbell, also 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.
Apple "iWatch" said to have different screen sizes.
Might be the reality stops there? Though given the phone precedent I'm skeptical.