Could be. Have seen some interesting concepts before with the display integrated as past of the band itself...minimal curves, low profile, etc. It's more along Apple's style than to add a separate piece to the band...be it round, square or rectangle.
If it's truly a "smart watch" with a round head and not a fitness band, count me out.
Opposite camp for me. I really don't see a use for a "fitness band" but an easily accessible display and interface for useful things is intriguing. Rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is price. $50 and I'm in for about any device. $100 it better be good. Hard to imagine value at $200+. Remember - no carrier subsidies. Right?
It's going to be Swatch kicked a notch or two upmarket. There will be several models and new ones will be released more frequently than once a year generating a constant buzz. Older ones will also be phased out to create some scarcity value. They can be configured to sync automatically with each other so that people can own several and not lose any data when they switch off from one iWatch to another. The design, marketing, and tech will be geared towards encouraging customers to purchase more than one iWatch and we will see a big and active collector/enthusiast community grow around this product. I'm not ruling out a Toyota/Lexus approach: two distinct sub-brands to address diff market segments.
You Beats me to it every time. I just figured out that a subscription to Beats streaming could be offered with the watch. Can there be a wireless connection to headphones yet, bandwidth-wise? If so, this would be a very big new platform: wear your acoustic cocoon out in the world.
If this smartwatch will interface with their (rumored) home automation initiative, also contains health functions, as well as other select apps that communicate with the phone, then the "why the **** should this exist" question can be answered I think- it would definitely be something very useful with functionality that could NOT be replicated with the same efficiency as a phone.
This is also an interesting angle. And location beacons out in the world, as well. Where is the fingerprint sensor by the way?
This is the first analysis I've heard that connects the iWatch to the iPod so explicitly. It has the ring of truth. Or at least plausibility. The iPod line has been fading as dedicated music players get subsumed by phones and car systems. iPods are already as small as watches, so why not combine them and add other functions to a device that people have been wearing for 100 years?
People don't mind having the same phone as others, but often die of embarrassment if another person is wearing exactly the same clothes. A watch is on the boundary of these two categories, so is it embarrassing or ok to have the same watch?
I think it really depends on what your personal hangups are.
Their first product will be a fitness band that comes with wireless earbuds. It's designed to replace all the iPods out there that people use for exercising, most specifically the iPod shuffle and nano, so it will have at least 4GB of storage for music and other data. Both the earbuds and the fitness band will have many sensors for tracking health and motion. The band will also have an M7 processor to detect gestures and record data for later upload to either your computer or iOS device. The earbuds will feed sensor data to the M7 on the band to allow the use of head gestures to control music playback and/or volume without using your hands - or even a gesture to have the band tell you health related data; heart rate, dehydration level, etc.
Rather than use removable batteries or plugging in to charge, both the earbuds and band will use inductive charging to recharge their batteries.
Why does this make sense? iPod shuffle and nano sales have been in decline for a while now. While they still sell in the millions, a large majority of people see no need to upgrade to a newer model when their current model works just fine. Releasing something smaller and less intrusive with health monitoring abilities would be a huge incentive to all those people to move onto something new, thus, supplanting iPod sales.
Opposite camp for me. I really don't see a use for a "fitness band" but an easily accessible display and interface for useful things is intriguing. Rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is price. $50 and I'm in for about any device. $100 it better be good. Hard to imagine value at $200+. Remember - no carrier subsidies. Right?
Useful things such as? I don't get it personally. I have a smartphone. Why would I want a smartwatch to duplicate the same functionalities of my phone? What's so hard about pulling out the phone? Why would I walk with two devices that both light up when I receive a message? For me, that make no sense whatsoever.
Citing sources within the Asia tech supply chain, one analyst believes he has more specifics about Apple's anticipated wearable "iWatch," including shipments for 2014, and how the product will fit into the company's lineup.
Brian Blair of Rosenblatt Securities issued a note to investors on Wednesday, a copy of which was provided to <em>AppleInsider</em>, in which he said the wrist-worn "iWatch" is expected to have a round face. According to Blair, Apple's approach will have a "slimmer profile" than Motorola's already-announced round Moto 360 watch, which is scheduled to debut <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/23/with-android-wear-google-fires-first-shot-in-hardware-war-against-apple">this summer</a> on Google's Android Wear platform.
<infobox>
Blair anticipates that Apple will build between 18 million and 21 million "iWatch" units in the second half of 2014, with device production to begin in late July or early August.
The analyst noted that Apple did not refresh its iPod lineup in 2013, which he believes positions the "iWatch" to largely supplant the company's declining iPod business.
Sounds more like an analyst picking suggestions from rumor sites and adding that they come from unnamed sources again.
A watch slimmer than a Moto 360 would be a nice watch but it would need to have a few things. It needs to be able to cache maps and use GPS. This doesn't need a cellular data connection as long as maps are sufficiently cached. Apple's vector maps are ok. If it stores a cache of maps around either current location or manually selected location at a radius of say 10 miles when near wifi, it doesn't need a connection to give directions and to load the maps. It just needs position and orientation from the GPS/accelerometer/gyro/compass. This can log walking/running routes for fitness.
When it comes to replacing the iPod, it would have to be wireless, which will drain the battery quickly and requires wireless headphones. Sony has done a good job with battery life in the following headphones:
It says up to 40 hours of audio and reviews seem to confirm the long life where most wireless headphones manage under 10 hours. The problem comes from transmitting the audio. An iPhone battery will have at least 5x more capacity than one that can go in a watch and will possibly manage 20 hours of bluetooth streaming - users seem to suggest iPhone battery life drops by 1/3 after a few hours of streaming audio. This would mean a watch would completely die after about 4 hours of audio. That might be usable for a run but it's far from ideal as an iPod replacement.
If they are buying Beats, they'd be better off having headphones replace the iPod so that you don't have to charge two devices and the headphones would last multiple days on battery, maybe even more than a week as it doesn't have to send/receive data continually. A watch could be used to control the headphones and choose the tracks but would people really buy both as the headphones would be expensive?
There can be 3 headphone models: buds, light/foldable cans and heavier cans. The wireless buds can be bundled with the iPhones but would also be an iPod themselves. If you go out running, you can leave the iPhone at home. The buds would do the same as the cans and be able to sync songs wirelessly. You can make playlists on the iPhone/iPad or Mac and sync them wirelessly with any of the headphones. These can have some sort of controls on the side like the iPod Shuffle but touch controls. When you go out for a run, just turn them on and you can do an action to shuffle the tracks or if you scroll, it can read out the names until you get to the right artist/playlist/song.
People don't mind having the same phone as others, but often die of embarrassment if another person is wearing exactly the same clothes.
Doesn't that say something about the person. I can remember a time when everybody wore blue gleans and thought nothing of it.
A watch is on the boundary of these two categories, so is it embarrassing or ok to have the same watch?
I really don't think most people care. To put it bluntly I don't go around inspecting people to see what they are wearing and frankly wouldn't spend a lot of time associating with those that do. In the end I would see a person worrying about such things as being a bit on the creepy side.
As a side note, the modern cell phone is in many ways the equivalent of the pocket watch that railroaders made use of a century ago. The pocket watch was critical to keeping the railroads running and like wise the cell phone has become critical for many businesses. I really don't know where Apple is going with this iWatch concept but I don't see it having a big draw like smart phones for business.
The earbuds will feed sensor data to the M7 on the band to allow the use of head gestures to control music playback and/or volume without using your hands - or even a gesture to have the band tell you health related data; heart rate, dehydration level, etc.
I put the likelihood of "head gestures" being any part of the solution being between negliable and zero. First, the ridicule-to-value ratio would be astronomical. Second, what's the point of a device on your wrist if you control the thing with your head? I could do the same thing with my iPhone in my pocket plus these magic head-gesture earbuds.
I put the likelihood of "head gestures" being any part of the solution being between negliable and zero. First, the ridicule-to-value ratio would be astronomical. Second, what's the point of a device on your wrist if you control the thing with your head? I could do the same thing with my iPhone in my pocket plus these magic head-gesture earbuds.
Well what's the point of the controls on the current earbuds when you can just control playback and volume on the iPod itself?
It's an added convenience... Sometimes when you're exercising or working out, you don't have a free hand. It's extremely inconvenient to have to stop in the middle of something to do some mundane task. Also when you're working out people aren't going notice small gestures you make with your head. Sure if you're walking down street and it looks like you're having neck spasms, there might be some ridicule - but if you're just walking, controlling the fitness band itself would make more sense, because you're probably going to want to look at it as well.
An iWatch has some potential if it is used for the two main purposes given here: keeping time (duh) and as a fitness accessory. The additions of GPS, streaming music, accepting calls, etc just remind me of what Samesung has done with their Gear: thrown crap at the wall and sees what sticks.
An iWatch has to be simple and elegant. The watch face would have to be always displaying the time. The watch would have to be always accepting biometric data from the user (pedometer, pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc). All that requires power. I agree that the dedicated M7 (maybe M8 given the extra sensor data that we are talking about) would be a perfect fit since it uses very little power to operate, and a smaller, less power-hungry chip (maybe the A6 or A5). This is what it would need to be a fitness band plus watch. The real question is: what is Apple going to do to add to this and how are they going to design this to make it truly the "iWatch"?
Opposite camp for me. I really don't see a use for a "fitness band" but an easily accessible display and interface for useful things is intriguing. Rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is price. $50 and I'm in for about any device. $100 it better be good. Hard to imagine value at $200+. Remember - no carrier subsidies. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWilliams87
Useful things such as? I don't get it personally. I have a smartphone. Why would I want a smartwatch to duplicate the same functionalities of my phone? What's so hard about pulling out the phone? Why would I walk with two devices that both light up when I receive a message? For me, that make no sense whatsoever.
I understand your skepticism, and those are indeed good questions. You've provided part of the answer already - "personally" and phrased the questions "why would I?" One can likely safely presume that these apple products will allow a user to select one device or the other, and there are indeed many times where *I* would prefer not to pull out my phone. It's not hard, but there are many, many things in life that are not hard...yet apple products have made so much more elegant, useful and enjoyable.
An iWatch has some potential if it is used for the two main purposes given here: keeping time (duh) and as a fitness accessory. The additions of GPS, streaming music, accepting calls, etc just remind me of what Samesung has done with their Gear: thrown crap at the wall and sees what sticks.
An iWatch has to be simple and elegant. The watch face would have to be always displaying the time. The watch would have to be always accepting biometric data from the user (pedometer, pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc). All that requires power. I agree that the dedicated M7 (maybe M8 given the extra sensor data that we are talking about) would be a perfect fit since it uses very little power to operate, and a smaller, less power-hungry chip (maybe the A6 or A5). This is what it would need to be a fitness band plus watch. The real question is: what is Apple going to do to add to this and how are they going to design this to make it truly the "iWatch"?
Completely agree with you here. I personally don't see the purpose of "streaming music, accepting calls" on an iWatch. The biometric rumors, however, that actually add useful functionality you don't currently have is very intriguing.
An iWatch supplanting iPod Touches? I don't think so. Maybe iPod Shuffles and Nanos, maybe. Now, i could believe that the iWatch might take over iPod Shuffle business because they'd be about the same size product (roughly the same amount of storage), But the iWatch can't have a big screen like the iPod Touch which is also used for other things like games, video where a larger screen is required.
Another possibility that Apple might surprise us with........... I don't know anything other than SPECULATION, so take with a LARGE grain of salt.
What's came to mind are those pictures of the so-called iPhone 6. What came to me as a POSSIBILTY is maybe the iPhone 6 photos people think is the iPhone 6, which looks more like a freaking 4.7 inch version of the iPod Touch (which hasn't been refreshed in almost two years). I was just thinking that maybe Apple might be releasing a 4.7inch iPod Touch (with 64Bit processor for gaming and maybe 24 Bit DAC for high res music). The reliable rumors is Apple is going to start selling 24 Bit content this year and if that becomes reality, then they have to have 24 Bit DACs in new products at some point. I don't know if it's what Apple is going to release, but it wouldn't shock me if they did. So, I'm not 100% convinced that these leaked photos are ONLY for the iPhone 6. Don't think anything other than what Apple actually releases because ANYTHING is possible. Personally, I think they might have a decent selling product with a 4.7inch iPod Touch w/ 64 bit processor, etc.
An iWatch has some potential if it is used for the two main purposes given here: keeping time (duh) and as a fitness accessory. The additions of GPS, streaming music, accepting calls, etc just remind me of what Samesung has done with their Gear: thrown crap at the wall and sees what sticks.
An iWatch has to be simple and elegant. The watch face would have to be always displaying the time. The watch would have to be always accepting biometric data from the user (pedometer, pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc). All that requires power. I agree that the dedicated M7 (maybe M8 given the extra sensor data that we are talking about) would be a perfect fit since it uses very little power to operate, and a smaller, less power-hungry chip (maybe the A6 or A5). This is what it would need to be a fitness band plus watch. The real question is: what is Apple going to do to add to this and how are they going to design this to make it truly the "iWatch"?
I ask this as a serious question, I'm not trying to attack you. Promise.
But who the **** needs to know their pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc.? I mean, sure, I can maybe think of a few situations, but they are EXTREMELY niche.
Look at the iPod: Everyone loves music, right?
The iPhone: Everyone has a phone and makes calls, right?
These weren't niche products with a very limited user base. I can't remember the last time in my 46 years that I cared what my hydration level was, what my pulse rate was, etc. Not to mention it takes about 10 seconds and ZERO tech to determine one's pulse rate. Why do I need a WATCH to tell me my respiration rate? I can sorta figure that out on my own pretty easily.
I just don't see these health things as being appealing to anyone other than geeks and the aforementioned very small niche uses. And who the heck wears a watch anymore, other than for fashion? The last time I was more than 5 feet from a clock was probably 10 years ago.
I just don't see this as a mass market (as in 10s of millions units shipped per quarter) device. It seems pointless and basically a fad.
I understand your skepticism, and those are indeed good questions. You've provided part of the answer already - "personally" and phrased the questions "why would I?" One can likely safely presume that these apple products will allow a user to select one device or the other, and there are indeed many times where *I* would prefer not to pull out my phone. It's not hard, but there are many, many things in life that are not hard...yet apple products have made so much more elegant, useful and enjoyable.
I wrote very anecdotally because it's easier to get the point I was trying to make across. But don't be mistaken, I was speaking very generally here as well. It would just come across as too arrogant to say a smartwatch that "duplicate[s] the same functionalities of my phone" is worthless, which I do think it is.
And you are right, Apple does make products that are elegant and useful. A smartwatch duplicating phone functionalities is not one of them.
I ask this as a serious question, I'm not trying to attack you. Promise.
But who the **** needs to know their pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc.? I mean, sure, I can maybe think of a few situations, but they are EXTREMELY niche.
Look at the iPod: Everyone loves music, right?
The iPhone: Everyone has a phone and makes calls, right?
These weren't niche products with a very limited user base. I can't remember the last time in my 46 years that I cared what my hydration level was, what my pulse rate was, etc. Not to mention it takes about 10 seconds and ZERO tech to determine one's pulse rate. Why do I need a WATCH to tell me my respiration rate? I can sorta figure that out on my own pretty easily.
I just don't see these health things as being appealing to anyone other than geeks and the aforementioned very small niche uses. And who the heck wears a watch anymore, other than for fashion? The last time I was more than 5 feet from a clock was probably 10 years ago.
I just don't see this as a mass market (as in 10s of millions units shipped per quarter) device. It seems pointless and basically a fad.
That's because you're judging it from the perspective of today's market. Biometrics will become huge in a few years time. These biometric rumors in the iWatch is the first step.
Also, it's not simply the tracking devices that are important. The apps that analyze this data, pull down medical records, and offer you recommendations are also important. I would buy one of these in a heart beat.
Comments
Maybe it's an interesting round watch.
Could be. Have seen some interesting concepts before with the display integrated as past of the band itself...minimal curves, low profile, etc. It's more along Apple's style than to add a separate piece to the band...be it round, square or rectangle.
If it's truly a "smart watch" with a round head and not a fitness band, count me out.
Opposite camp for me. I really don't see a use for a "fitness band" but an easily accessible display and interface for useful things is intriguing. Rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is price. $50 and I'm in for about any device. $100 it better be good. Hard to imagine value at $200+. Remember - no carrier subsidies. Right?
It's going to be Swatch kicked a notch or two upmarket. There will be several models and new ones will be released more frequently than once a year generating a constant buzz. Older ones will also be phased out to create some scarcity value. They can be configured to sync automatically with each other so that people can own several and not lose any data when they switch off from one iWatch to another. The design, marketing, and tech will be geared towards encouraging customers to purchase more than one iWatch and we will see a big and active collector/enthusiast community grow around this product. I'm not ruling out a Toyota/Lexus approach: two distinct sub-brands to address diff market segments.
You Beats me to it every time. I just figured out that a subscription to Beats streaming could be offered with the watch. Can there be a wireless connection to headphones yet, bandwidth-wise? If so, this would be a very big new platform: wear your acoustic cocoon out in the world.
This is also an interesting angle. And location beacons out in the world, as well. Where is the fingerprint sensor by the way?
People don't mind having the same phone as others, but often die of embarrassment if another person is wearing exactly the same clothes. A watch is on the boundary of these two categories, so is it embarrassing or ok to have the same watch?
I think it really depends on what your personal hangups are.
Their first product will be a fitness band that comes with wireless earbuds. It's designed to replace all the iPods out there that people use for exercising, most specifically the iPod shuffle and nano, so it will have at least 4GB of storage for music and other data. Both the earbuds and the fitness band will have many sensors for tracking health and motion. The band will also have an M7 processor to detect gestures and record data for later upload to either your computer or iOS device. The earbuds will feed sensor data to the M7 on the band to allow the use of head gestures to control music playback and/or volume without using your hands - or even a gesture to have the band tell you health related data; heart rate, dehydration level, etc.
Rather than use removable batteries or plugging in to charge, both the earbuds and band will use inductive charging to recharge their batteries.
Why does this make sense? iPod shuffle and nano sales have been in decline for a while now. While they still sell in the millions, a large majority of people see no need to upgrade to a newer model when their current model works just fine. Releasing something smaller and less intrusive with health monitoring abilities would be a huge incentive to all those people to move onto something new, thus, supplanting iPod sales.
Head, meet nail.
Opposite camp for me. I really don't see a use for a "fitness band" but an easily accessible display and interface for useful things is intriguing. Rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is price. $50 and I'm in for about any device. $100 it better be good. Hard to imagine value at $200+. Remember - no carrier subsidies. Right?
Useful things such as? I don't get it personally. I have a smartphone. Why would I want a smartwatch to duplicate the same functionalities of my phone? What's so hard about pulling out the phone? Why would I walk with two devices that both light up when I receive a message? For me, that make no sense whatsoever.
Sounds more like an analyst picking suggestions from rumor sites and adding that they come from unnamed sources again.
A watch slimmer than a Moto 360 would be a nice watch but it would need to have a few things. It needs to be able to cache maps and use GPS. This doesn't need a cellular data connection as long as maps are sufficiently cached. Apple's vector maps are ok. If it stores a cache of maps around either current location or manually selected location at a radius of say 10 miles when near wifi, it doesn't need a connection to give directions and to load the maps. It just needs position and orientation from the GPS/accelerometer/gyro/compass. This can log walking/running routes for fitness.
When it comes to replacing the iPod, it would have to be wireless, which will drain the battery quickly and requires wireless headphones. Sony has done a good job with battery life in the following headphones:
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DRB-TN200-BLK-Bluetooth-Headset/dp/B00BN0N0A8
It says up to 40 hours of audio and reviews seem to confirm the long life where most wireless headphones manage under 10 hours. The problem comes from transmitting the audio. An iPhone battery will have at least 5x more capacity than one that can go in a watch and will possibly manage 20 hours of bluetooth streaming - users seem to suggest iPhone battery life drops by 1/3 after a few hours of streaming audio. This would mean a watch would completely die after about 4 hours of audio. That might be usable for a run but it's far from ideal as an iPod replacement.
If they are buying Beats, they'd be better off having headphones replace the iPod so that you don't have to charge two devices and the headphones would last multiple days on battery, maybe even more than a week as it doesn't have to send/receive data continually. A watch could be used to control the headphones and choose the tracks but would people really buy both as the headphones would be expensive?
There can be 3 headphone models: buds, light/foldable cans and heavier cans. The wireless buds can be bundled with the iPhones but would also be an iPod themselves. If you go out running, you can leave the iPhone at home. The buds would do the same as the cans and be able to sync songs wirelessly. You can make playlists on the iPhone/iPad or Mac and sync them wirelessly with any of the headphones. These can have some sort of controls on the side like the iPod Shuffle but touch controls. When you go out for a run, just turn them on and you can do an action to shuffle the tracks or if you scroll, it can read out the names until you get to the right artist/playlist/song.
I really don't think most people care. To put it bluntly I don't go around inspecting people to see what they are wearing and frankly wouldn't spend a lot of time associating with those that do. In the end I would see a person worrying about such things as being a bit on the creepy side.
As a side note, the modern cell phone is in many ways the equivalent of the pocket watch that railroaders made use of a century ago. The pocket watch was critical to keeping the railroads running and like wise the cell phone has become critical for many businesses. I really don't know where Apple is going with this iWatch concept but I don't see it having a big draw like smart phones for business.
The earbuds will feed sensor data to the M7 on the band to allow the use of head gestures to control music playback and/or volume without using your hands - or even a gesture to have the band tell you health related data; heart rate, dehydration level, etc.
I put the likelihood of "head gestures" being any part of the solution being between negliable and zero. First, the ridicule-to-value ratio would be astronomical. Second, what's the point of a device on your wrist if you control the thing with your head? I could do the same thing with my iPhone in my pocket plus these magic head-gesture earbuds.
I put the likelihood of "head gestures" being any part of the solution being between negliable and zero. First, the ridicule-to-value ratio would be astronomical. Second, what's the point of a device on your wrist if you control the thing with your head? I could do the same thing with my iPhone in my pocket plus these magic head-gesture earbuds.
Well what's the point of the controls on the current earbuds when you can just control playback and volume on the iPod itself?
It's an added convenience... Sometimes when you're exercising or working out, you don't have a free hand. It's extremely inconvenient to have to stop in the middle of something to do some mundane task. Also when you're working out people aren't going notice small gestures you make with your head. Sure if you're walking down street and it looks like you're having neck spasms, there might be some ridicule - but if you're just walking, controlling the fitness band itself would make more sense, because you're probably going to want to look at it as well.
Furthermore, my speculation was based off an Apple patent for earbuds that have gesture recognition.
...and by the way, I don't necessarily think head gestures are even very practical, it was just part of what might be possible.
An iWatch has some potential if it is used for the two main purposes given here: keeping time (duh) and as a fitness accessory. The additions of GPS, streaming music, accepting calls, etc just remind me of what Samesung has done with their Gear: thrown crap at the wall and sees what sticks.
An iWatch has to be simple and elegant. The watch face would have to be always displaying the time. The watch would have to be always accepting biometric data from the user (pedometer, pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc). All that requires power. I agree that the dedicated M7 (maybe M8 given the extra sensor data that we are talking about) would be a perfect fit since it uses very little power to operate, and a smaller, less power-hungry chip (maybe the A6 or A5). This is what it would need to be a fitness band plus watch. The real question is: what is Apple going to do to add to this and how are they going to design this to make it truly the "iWatch"?
Opposite camp for me. I really don't see a use for a "fitness band" but an easily accessible display and interface for useful things is intriguing. Rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is price. $50 and I'm in for about any device. $100 it better be good. Hard to imagine value at $200+. Remember - no carrier subsidies. Right?
Useful things such as? I don't get it personally. I have a smartphone. Why would I want a smartwatch to duplicate the same functionalities of my phone? What's so hard about pulling out the phone? Why would I walk with two devices that both light up when I receive a message? For me, that make no sense whatsoever.
I understand your skepticism, and those are indeed good questions. You've provided part of the answer already - "personally" and phrased the questions "why would I?" One can likely safely presume that these apple products will allow a user to select one device or the other, and there are indeed many times where *I* would prefer not to pull out my phone. It's not hard, but there are many, many things in life that are not hard...yet apple products have made so much more elegant, useful and enjoyable.
An iWatch has some potential if it is used for the two main purposes given here: keeping time (duh) and as a fitness accessory. The additions of GPS, streaming music, accepting calls, etc just remind me of what Samesung has done with their Gear: thrown crap at the wall and sees what sticks.
An iWatch has to be simple and elegant. The watch face would have to be always displaying the time. The watch would have to be always accepting biometric data from the user (pedometer, pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc). All that requires power. I agree that the dedicated M7 (maybe M8 given the extra sensor data that we are talking about) would be a perfect fit since it uses very little power to operate, and a smaller, less power-hungry chip (maybe the A6 or A5). This is what it would need to be a fitness band plus watch. The real question is: what is Apple going to do to add to this and how are they going to design this to make it truly the "iWatch"?
Completely agree with you here. I personally don't see the purpose of "streaming music, accepting calls" on an iWatch. The biometric rumors, however, that actually add useful functionality you don't currently have is very intriguing.
Another possibility that Apple might surprise us with........... I don't know anything other than SPECULATION, so take with a LARGE grain of salt.
What's came to mind are those pictures of the so-called iPhone 6. What came to me as a POSSIBILTY is maybe the iPhone 6 photos people think is the iPhone 6, which looks more like a freaking 4.7 inch version of the iPod Touch (which hasn't been refreshed in almost two years). I was just thinking that maybe Apple might be releasing a 4.7inch iPod Touch (with 64Bit processor for gaming and maybe 24 Bit DAC for high res music). The reliable rumors is Apple is going to start selling 24 Bit content this year and if that becomes reality, then they have to have 24 Bit DACs in new products at some point. I don't know if it's what Apple is going to release, but it wouldn't shock me if they did. So, I'm not 100% convinced that these leaked photos are ONLY for the iPhone 6. Don't think anything other than what Apple actually releases because ANYTHING is possible. Personally, I think they might have a decent selling product with a 4.7inch iPod Touch w/ 64 bit processor, etc.
An iWatch has some potential if it is used for the two main purposes given here: keeping time (duh) and as a fitness accessory. The additions of GPS, streaming music, accepting calls, etc just remind me of what Samesung has done with their Gear: thrown crap at the wall and sees what sticks.
An iWatch has to be simple and elegant. The watch face would have to be always displaying the time. The watch would have to be always accepting biometric data from the user (pedometer, pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc). All that requires power. I agree that the dedicated M7 (maybe M8 given the extra sensor data that we are talking about) would be a perfect fit since it uses very little power to operate, and a smaller, less power-hungry chip (maybe the A6 or A5). This is what it would need to be a fitness band plus watch. The real question is: what is Apple going to do to add to this and how are they going to design this to make it truly the "iWatch"?
I ask this as a serious question, I'm not trying to attack you. Promise.
But who the **** needs to know their pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc.? I mean, sure, I can maybe think of a few situations, but they are EXTREMELY niche.
Look at the iPod: Everyone loves music, right?
The iPhone: Everyone has a phone and makes calls, right?
These weren't niche products with a very limited user base. I can't remember the last time in my 46 years that I cared what my hydration level was, what my pulse rate was, etc. Not to mention it takes about 10 seconds and ZERO tech to determine one's pulse rate. Why do I need a WATCH to tell me my respiration rate? I can sorta figure that out on my own pretty easily.
I just don't see these health things as being appealing to anyone other than geeks and the aforementioned very small niche uses. And who the heck wears a watch anymore, other than for fashion? The last time I was more than 5 feet from a clock was probably 10 years ago.
I just don't see this as a mass market (as in 10s of millions units shipped per quarter) device. It seems pointless and basically a fad.
I understand your skepticism, and those are indeed good questions. You've provided part of the answer already - "personally" and phrased the questions "why would I?" One can likely safely presume that these apple products will allow a user to select one device or the other, and there are indeed many times where *I* would prefer not to pull out my phone. It's not hard, but there are many, many things in life that are not hard...yet apple products have made so much more elegant, useful and enjoyable.
I wrote very anecdotally because it's easier to get the point I was trying to make across. But don't be mistaken, I was speaking very generally here as well. It would just come across as too arrogant to say a smartwatch that "duplicate[s] the same functionalities of my phone" is worthless, which I do think it is.
And you are right, Apple does make products that are elegant and useful. A smartwatch duplicating phone functionalities is not one of them.
I ask this as a serious question, I'm not trying to attack you. Promise.
But who the **** needs to know their pulse rate, respiration rate, hydration levels, etc.? I mean, sure, I can maybe think of a few situations, but they are EXTREMELY niche.
Look at the iPod: Everyone loves music, right?
The iPhone: Everyone has a phone and makes calls, right?
These weren't niche products with a very limited user base. I can't remember the last time in my 46 years that I cared what my hydration level was, what my pulse rate was, etc. Not to mention it takes about 10 seconds and ZERO tech to determine one's pulse rate. Why do I need a WATCH to tell me my respiration rate? I can sorta figure that out on my own pretty easily.
I just don't see these health things as being appealing to anyone other than geeks and the aforementioned very small niche uses. And who the heck wears a watch anymore, other than for fashion? The last time I was more than 5 feet from a clock was probably 10 years ago.
I just don't see this as a mass market (as in 10s of millions units shipped per quarter) device. It seems pointless and basically a fad.
That's because you're judging it from the perspective of today's market. Biometrics will become huge in a few years time. These biometric rumors in the iWatch is the first step.
Also, it's not simply the tracking devices that are important. The apps that analyze this data, pull down medical records, and offer you recommendations are also important. I would buy one of these in a heart beat.