Battery life on a 'smart' watch is a problem that I think has not been solved yet.
I am content to wait and see, and not get too excited.
I agree.
If they could put the battery in the band, that would probably allow for some serious storage. Flexible lithium polymer batteries have been demonstrated. Solar cells on the band as well and the thing could never need tethered charging.
I have always considered my Citizen eco-drive watch to be probably the most amazing and impressive piece of technology I have ever owned. Nothing made by Apple comes close. A few minutes of ambient light is all it needs to power it for a day. The light coming through a shirt sleeve is enough in most instances. If you put it in direct sunlight it will fully charge in a couple hours. If you pop it in a drawer when fully charged, It will run and keep time for 6 months without further exposure to sunlight. It will even signal to you if it is no longer displaying the correct time because it ran out of power. The one I bought in 1993 still works perfectly. It uses a lithium/titanium capacitor/battery that s still functioning perfectly after 21 years.
First of all, I don't think Apple is going to announce iWatch on 9/9. It is so hard for me to believe that we have not seen any parts leaks, like the one for iPhone 6. I don't think they are going to announce vaporware like Moto360 and others. I think they are just going to let Samsung and LG come out with variety of versions and once they give up with their failures they will come out with one and just crush the market - Now is not the time. Finally, iWatch is just the wish of Wall Street and come 9/9 they will dump Apple stocks when there is no iWatch announcements. Pump and Dump. Come on guys - Did we all forget Gene Munster and is consistent sorry about Apple TV, as in Television. We haven't heard from him for a while.
Way too much smoke for there not to be fire. Plus we haven't seen any "nope's" from Dalrymple or any other trusted source. We never did with Beats either. Re/code seems to be pretty spot on with their rumors. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's Apple PR leaking to them.
It just struck me at the WWDC keynote how jazzed everybody seemed to be—they apparently feel like they're really on a roll and that there's a lot more coming. This huge venue and purpose-built building for this announcement really seems to underscore that. I hope they're right. I'll be watching with great interest even if nothing they announce is exactly right for me. That sets me apart from a lot of commenters here I guess.
I initially thought that about the venue choice (and still do) but someone on Twitter wondered if this wasn't just the effects of Katie Cotton no longer running the show at Apple and Tim Cook's desire to be more open and friendly with the media. Heck, Gizmodo got an invite. Doubtful they would have if Cotton was still in charge. At the same time Apple has only used this venue a couple times (when announcing the Mac in 1984 and iMac in 1998) so I can't imagine Cook would sign off on a venue of that significance if all Apple was showing us is an iPhone with a bigger screen.
I'm still not sure what the utility of of this would be for me, but I am interested in seeing what they produce.
If it's a nice-looking product, and it actually has some good functionality, I don't see how $399 is a lot.
I don't understand these guys who come on here and say that if they're not interested in a product, it doesn't deserve to exist.
I sincerely doubt if I'll be interested in this for myself, but if they come up with something that's popular and successful, that's great. It's the same with the iPad—I'd be using it as a reader 99% of the time, and without a file structure, it's absolutely worthless to me for that. I'm still glad it's enjoyed success, and I can certainly see a use case for it for somebody with different needs.
It just struck me at the WWDC keynote how jazzed everybody seemed to be—they apparently feel like they're really on a roll and that there's a lot more coming. This huge venue and purpose-built building for this announcement really seems to underscore that. I hope they're right. I'll be watching with great interest even if nothing they announce is exactly right for me. That sets me apart from a lot of commenters here I guess.
(I did say that if the iWatch really is this old-people-with-medical-problems medical device that a lot of people seem to think it is, that Apple will explode their cachet with their core demographic, and I stand by that—and that's speaking as an old-person-with-medical-problems!)
Nice comment.
If the iWatch turns out to be $200 and that equates to £150 here in England, that's very buyable. It would also make a great present.
When the original iPhone was announced, I was skeptical. I was so disillusioned by the mediocrity of smartphones, that I was getting by with a cheap Nokia. It was only a year later that I was swayed by the 3G. Yet looking back at the 2007 keynote, it was a thrilling affair. It's still exciting to watch today. I wonder if 9th September will reach those levels.
With the iPad, however, I immediately saw that it was going to be huge. I was perplexed at the tepid response of the media.
With iOS 8, the iPad will effectively get your file reader in the form of iCloud Drive, so maybe you will be tempted.
Otherwise, I think I share roughly your level of enthusiasm for 9th; I'm excited, but remain hesitant at the iWatch's killer selling point.
Re the poster with all the watch photos: they all look fine and dandy, but those icons are so tiny! Even when blown up on this forum, some of the text is unreadable. Much more simplicity is needed.
First of all, I don't think Apple is going to announce iWatch on 9/9. It is so hard for me to believe that we have not seen any parts leaks
That's because there's no mass production yet, with thousands of workers eyeing the design. We also didn't get the iPhone design early either (or designs of various iPod Nano designs), only rumors like the current iWatch rumors.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the iWatch will be shown and demoed, as evidenced by the new building Apple is constructing at the Flint Center. I would not be surprised if it contained a track and exercise machines so guests can run around and see how the wearables track their vitals.
Media predicted $1,000 because they were expecting OSX on a tablet.
No, they were expecting it because Steve Jobs led them to believe it when he said "under $1,000" to Walt Mossberg (then of the Wall St Journal) and when Mossberg replied that that usually means $999 Jobs purposefully didn't correct him.
No, they were expecting it because Steve Jobs led them to believe it when he said "under $1,000" to Walt Mossberg (then of the Wall St Journal) and when Mossberg replied that that usually means $999 Jobs purposefully didn't correct him.
That too. Though I think with this rumor sites are reporting it incorrectly. The re/code rumor specifically said multiple models at different price points, yet sites like this are reporting it as "iWatch to cost $400". Presumably because that gets more page views with people showing up just to say how they'll never pay $400 for an "iWatch" even though they have no idea what Apple is announcing, no idea what it looks like or what features it has.
Personally I think there's NO way Apple is going to position their wearable device(s) as a competitor to Moto, LG, Samsung, etc. Paul Deneve, who was CEO of luxury firm YSL is running the retail strategy for this. He's hired other sales/retail executives from luxury firms to his team. To me that signals that Apple will be positioning this product (at least the high end model) as affordable luxury. And then maybe cheaper models that are less about fashion and more about specific function (like the FuelBand, FitBit etc.).
Good to see some here (patchyThePirate, for example) catching onto my idea (from many months ago) of an iWatch with multi-purpose bands. Here are my compiled thoughts on the iWatch I've been posting here and elsewhere all along.
In the realm of dedicated watches, the world's first GPS watch cost $2300. This watch uses GPS signals to synch your watch to the local time as you cross time zones (versus using the radio signals normally used to synch high-end watches with an atomic clock as you change time zones). $2300 for a watch that tells you the time, has some chronograph features, and updates itself as you cross time zones. How do you get $2300 for a watch with no more functionality than one included app on any modern smartphone? Two words: Style. Materials.
Apple's iWatch will perform hundreds of functions. Add some Apple style and you boost the price. Make a model incorporating precious metals, like gold or platinum and you boost the price higher. But Apple has a third potential means of boosting the price. Apple can, and as widely speculated, will, add some sophisticated health monitoring functions not yet available on any available consumer wearable.
Now imagine if Apple were to add some of these health monitoring sensors not in the body of the iWatch, but in easily attachable bands. A diabetic would buy the band with blood glucose monitoring sensors, and pay a pretty penny for it, perhaps subsidized by insurance. A sports enthusiast/athlete will buy the sports band with sensors to monitor UV exposure, pulse rate, etc. With interchangeable bands, an iWatch owner could switch from a sports band to a more formal band for wearing the iWatch when going out in the evening. If the bands incorporate the batteries, then switching to another band gets you a full charge, and the switched out band gets set down on the included inductive charger.
Now how much would you pay?
In the fullness of time, all of the traditional watch makers are vulnerable. The utility of a watch as a timepiece has already been wholly disrupted by technology. Gone are the days when people check the time 100 times a day; smartphones with reminders and appointment calendars inform us of our time-based commitments, and these devices are looked at for a variety of purposes throughout the day, with the time ever present on screen. Smart watches will first supplant ordinary watches as a more functional fashion accessory. And with smart watch functionality soon becoming expected, luxury smart watches will come on the scene where they will displace those luxury watches whose functionality extends only to telling the time and a few other time-based functions. A technology ecosystem will be a critical part of the picture, and this is something none of the existing luxury watchmakers can bring to the market in any meaningful way compared with the technology giants currently moving into this space. Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
Advice to the luxury watch makers: partner with tech giants, if they'll even have you.
Well, if Apple has accomplished anything with the iPhone 5 and 5S, it's taught everybody the word "chamfered".
Because few people do anything with their hands, or work with anything that's mechanical anymore. A chamfered edge is used anywhere you don't want a fatigue crack to form, or anywhere you want to guide an o-ring seal into place without snagging. On a spacer around a shaft, a negative chamfer will be used to hold an o-ring as a seal. The top edge of a cylinder will be chamfered to allow piston rings to slide in without breaking. And so on. It's as basic a shape feature as the circle or the screw.
In my day (classic old man phrase, I know) all kids had to learn to read music, to sew on a machine, touch type on typewriters, and take some kind of shop class. I took printing, where I learned that each letter has a chamfer where the face transitions to the base, for strength. What we didn't learn, of course, was any computer science or programming.
At $400 it better cure cancer. At $199 I wouldn't think twice. Like it or not, at some point there is a valuation for physical volume - we're just wired that way - and for function. If this is a tether that keeps me looking at my other Apple devices, then it needs to be silly-cheap. If it actually does stuff - like all the stuff athletes want their devices to to without placing them in harm's way - then you can lean higher. If it replaces my phone, then go ahead and charge phone prices. It has to have the basic decent functions of a well-made watch. As in you can read it quickly and it's visible under any conditions and 100m water resistant. In that case please - no physical port. The vast majority of people own a decent watch that costs less than $100. They will need to convince them to spend several times more for true value. I have an iPod nano first gen that I just dusted off the other day. It's still perfect, does everything it was intended to do. Once I bought an iPhone, it went in a drawer. The iPhone duplicated everything it does and more. So the one thing Apple has to make sure of is that after the initial rush, people don't spend half their time saying "but my phone already does that".
Why are people shocked by a $400 price tag? The Suunto Ambit 3 Peak costs $500. $600 if you want a sapphire crystal. Suunto makes great adventure watches, but I can guaranty that the Apple watch will do much more. Frankly, for $400, I'll be shocked if it's even a real watch. I think it will be more like an upscale Nike Fuelband type of bangle, with a focus on HealthKit and HomeKit and maybe even payment transactions. The idea of trying to recreate a small phone on your wrist is pointless.
I'd think Apple would have to break from their norm but releasing multiple versions of a wearable that that are differentiated in price, not by NAND capacity, but mostly by their appearance for different kinds of buyers, like with other wrist-worn devices.
1. But previously the iPod has gotten a whole Histor color palette of models, simply because they couldn't decide on the colour.
2. I don't see them adding NAND to this iWatch. Rather, it'd be a complementary device for the iPhone. Possibly with cellular capability, to complement the iPod touch. People will be able to get a prepaid nano SIM iWatch and use their iPod touch for phone calls. But I don't see an iWatch with storage options. Don't even know what its purpose would be. (I also don't see an iWatch expand in size for cellular, but I simply wanted to throw in that option - for the sake of discussion lol)
The AppleTV doesn't have NAND storage for users to store data. The device is meant as a means to do something with data that is accessible to the device. I think an iWatch will be the same; have it access data on the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch/Mac or from the Internet, through one other other devices.
If they could put the battery in the band, that would probably allow for some serious storage.
That is what I have thought as well. The upside of that will be that they can release this iWatch with two bands, and sell more separately in various colours. For fashion focussed folks, and for longer life without being locked to (Samsung) power polls.
Solar cells on the band as well and the thing could never need tethered charging.
I think the small size of a wrist band wouldn't make it feasible for solar charging.
1. But previously the iPod has gotten a whole Histor color palette of models, simply because they couldn't decide on the colour.
2. I don't see them adding NAND to this iWatch. Rather, it'd be a complementary device for the iPhone. Possibly with cellular capability, to complement the iPod touch. People will be able to get a prepaid nano SIM iWatch and use their iPod touch for phone calls. But I don't see an iWatch with storage options. Don't even know what its purpose would be. (I also don't see an iWatch expand in size for cellular, but I simply wanted to throw in that option - for the sake of discussion lol)
The AppleTV doesn't have NAND storage for users to store data. The device is meant as a means to do something with data that is accessible to the device. I think an iWatch will be the same; have it access data on the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch/Mac or from the Internet, through one other other devices.
That is what I have thought as well. The upside of that will be that they can release this iWatch with two bands, and sell more separately in various colours. For fashion focussed folks, and for longer life without being locked to (Samsung) power polls.
I think the small size of a wrist band wouldn't make it feasible for solar charging.
Comments
Battery life on a 'smart' watch is a problem that I think has not been solved yet.
I am content to wait and see, and not get too excited.
I agree.
If they could put the battery in the band, that would probably allow for some serious storage. Flexible lithium polymer batteries have been demonstrated. Solar cells on the band as well and the thing could never need tethered charging.
I have always considered my Citizen eco-drive watch to be probably the most amazing and impressive piece of technology I have ever owned. Nothing made by Apple comes close. A few minutes of ambient light is all it needs to power it for a day. The light coming through a shirt sleeve is enough in most instances. If you put it in direct sunlight it will fully charge in a couple hours. If you pop it in a drawer when fully charged, It will run and keep time for 6 months without further exposure to sunlight. It will even signal to you if it is no longer displaying the correct time because it ran out of power. The one I bought in 1993 still works perfectly. It uses a lithium/titanium capacitor/battery that s still functioning perfectly after 21 years.
I believe that Apple will develop a round iWatch that will look something like this:
Enjoy trying to press those minuscule buttons on the touchscreen.
Why should OSX -- as opposed to iOS -- on a tablet double it's price (larger RAM notwithstanding)?
Yes, it does.
Nice comment.
If the iWatch turns out to be $200 and that equates to £150 here in England, that's very buyable. It would also make a great present.
When the original iPhone was announced, I was skeptical. I was so disillusioned by the mediocrity of smartphones, that I was getting by with a cheap Nokia. It was only a year later that I was swayed by the 3G. Yet looking back at the 2007 keynote, it was a thrilling affair. It's still exciting to watch today. I wonder if 9th September will reach those levels.
With the iPad, however, I immediately saw that it was going to be huge. I was perplexed at the tepid response of the media.
With iOS 8, the iPad will effectively get your file reader in the form of iCloud Drive, so maybe you will be tempted.
Otherwise, I think I share roughly your level of enthusiasm for 9th; I'm excited, but remain hesitant at the iWatch's killer selling point.
Re the poster with all the watch photos: they all look fine and dandy, but those icons are so tiny! Even when blown up on this forum, some of the text is unreadable. Much more simplicity is needed.
First of all, I don't think Apple is going to announce iWatch on 9/9. It is so hard for me to believe that we have not seen any parts leaks
That's because there's no mass production yet, with thousands of workers eyeing the design. We also didn't get the iPhone design early either (or designs of various iPod Nano designs), only rumors like the current iWatch rumors.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the iWatch will be shown and demoed, as evidenced by the new building Apple is constructing at the Flint Center. I would not be surprised if it contained a track and exercise machines so guests can run around and see how the wearables track their vitals.
Media predicted $1,000 because they were expecting OSX on a tablet.
No, they were expecting it because Steve Jobs led them to believe it when he said "under $1,000" to Walt Mossberg (then of the Wall St Journal) and when Mossberg replied that that usually means $999 Jobs purposefully didn't correct him.
Will there be a day when all we'll need is an iWatch and wireless earbud to do most things we need?
Personally I think there's NO way Apple is going to position their wearable device(s) as a competitor to Moto, LG, Samsung, etc. Paul Deneve, who was CEO of luxury firm YSL is running the retail strategy for this. He's hired other sales/retail executives from luxury firms to his team. To me that signals that Apple will be positioning this product (at least the high end model) as affordable luxury. And then maybe cheaper models that are less about fashion and more about specific function (like the FuelBand, FitBit etc.).
In the realm of dedicated watches, the world's first GPS watch cost $2300. This watch uses GPS signals to synch your watch to the local time as you cross time zones (versus using the radio signals normally used to synch high-end watches with an atomic clock as you change time zones). $2300 for a watch that tells you the time, has some chronograph features, and updates itself as you cross time zones. How do you get $2300 for a watch with no more functionality than one included app on any modern smartphone? Two words: Style. Materials.
Apple's iWatch will perform hundreds of functions. Add some Apple style and you boost the price. Make a model incorporating precious metals, like gold or platinum and you boost the price higher. But Apple has a third potential means of boosting the price. Apple can, and as widely speculated, will, add some sophisticated health monitoring functions not yet available on any available consumer wearable.
Now imagine if Apple were to add some of these health monitoring sensors not in the body of the iWatch, but in easily attachable bands. A diabetic would buy the band with blood glucose monitoring sensors, and pay a pretty penny for it, perhaps subsidized by insurance. A sports enthusiast/athlete will buy the sports band with sensors to monitor UV exposure, pulse rate, etc. With interchangeable bands, an iWatch owner could switch from a sports band to a more formal band for wearing the iWatch when going out in the evening. If the bands incorporate the batteries, then switching to another band gets you a full charge, and the switched out band gets set down on the included inductive charger.
Now how much would you pay?
In the fullness of time, all of the traditional watch makers are vulnerable. The utility of a watch as a timepiece has already been wholly disrupted by technology. Gone are the days when people check the time 100 times a day; smartphones with reminders and appointment calendars inform us of our time-based commitments, and these devices are looked at for a variety of purposes throughout the day, with the time ever present on screen. Smart watches will first supplant ordinary watches as a more functional fashion accessory. And with smart watch functionality soon becoming expected, luxury smart watches will come on the scene where they will displace those luxury watches whose functionality extends only to telling the time and a few other time-based functions. A technology ecosystem will be a critical part of the picture, and this is something none of the existing luxury watchmakers can bring to the market in any meaningful way compared with the technology giants currently moving into this space. Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
Advice to the luxury watch makers: partner with tech giants, if they'll even have you.
Because few people do anything with their hands, or work with anything that's mechanical anymore. A chamfered edge is used anywhere you don't want a fatigue crack to form, or anywhere you want to guide an o-ring seal into place without snagging. On a spacer around a shaft, a negative chamfer will be used to hold an o-ring as a seal. The top edge of a cylinder will be chamfered to allow piston rings to slide in without breaking. And so on. It's as basic a shape feature as the circle or the screw.
In my day (classic old man phrase, I know) all kids had to learn to read music, to sew on a machine, touch type on typewriters, and take some kind of shop class. I took printing, where I learned that each letter has a chamfer where the face transitions to the base, for strength. What we didn't learn, of course, was any computer science or programming.
At $400 it better cure cancer. At $199 I wouldn't think twice. Like it or not, at some point there is a valuation for physical volume - we're just wired that way - and for function. If this is a tether that keeps me looking at my other Apple devices, then it needs to be silly-cheap. If it actually does stuff - like all the stuff athletes want their devices to to without placing them in harm's way - then you can lean higher. If it replaces my phone, then go ahead and charge phone prices. It has to have the basic decent functions of a well-made watch. As in you can read it quickly and it's visible under any conditions and 100m water resistant. In that case please - no physical port. The vast majority of people own a decent watch that costs less than $100. They will need to convince them to spend several times more for true value. I have an iPod nano first gen that I just dusted off the other day. It's still perfect, does everything it was intended to do. Once I bought an iPhone, it went in a drawer. The iPhone duplicated everything it does and more. So the one thing Apple has to make sure of is that after the initial rush, people don't spend half their time saying "but my phone already does that".
So the same price as an iPad mini. I feel that it'll need to be compelling to garner a similar pattern of sales.
just visualizing how that iPad mini is going to look tied to your wrist...
Why are people shocked by a $400 price tag? The Suunto Ambit 3 Peak costs $500. $600 if you want a sapphire crystal. Suunto makes great adventure watches, but I can guaranty that the Apple watch will do much more. Frankly, for $400, I'll be shocked if it's even a real watch. I think it will be more like an upscale Nike Fuelband type of bangle, with a focus on HealthKit and HomeKit and maybe even payment transactions. The idea of trying to recreate a small phone on your wrist is pointless.
Accu-Chek Compact Blood Glucose Test Strips, 51ct - $72.88 (Walmart) (does not include lancets)
Philips Respironics BiPAP Auto SV Advanced-System One w/Humidifier - $3,689.00 (cpapsupplyusa.com)
$400 seems very reasonable
1. But previously the iPod has gotten a whole Histor color palette of models, simply because they couldn't decide on the colour.
2. I don't see them adding NAND to this iWatch. Rather, it'd be a complementary device for the iPhone. Possibly with cellular capability, to complement the iPod touch. People will be able to get a prepaid nano SIM iWatch and use their iPod touch for phone calls. But I don't see an iWatch with storage options. Don't even know what its purpose would be. (I also don't see an iWatch expand in size for cellular, but I simply wanted to throw in that option - for the sake of discussion lol)
The AppleTV doesn't have NAND storage for users to store data. The device is meant as a means to do something with data that is accessible to the device. I think an iWatch will be the same; have it access data on the iPhone/iPad/iPod touch/Mac or from the Internet, through one other other devices.
That is what I have thought as well. The upside of that will be that they can release this iWatch with two bands, and sell more separately in various colours. For fashion focussed folks, and for longer life without being locked to (Samsung) power polls.
I think the small size of a wrist band wouldn't make it feasible for solar charging.
Apple updates solar patent to include multitouch, flexible displays