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.
+1 - I've already written enough in other posts on this topic for people to see what I think this product will be.
However for those too bothered to look a quick summary. I also believe the iWatch will be a 2-part accessory to iOS devices:
a) watch-styled face for QuickLook and reaction buttons (yes-no-later-sleep to iOS events, reminders, etc.) designed by Apple for people that want this functionality;
b) separate bands - both as fashion/individuality statements and additional functionality through integrated tech sensors in the bands themselves. Whether that tech interfaces with the Apple watch-face, or directly with an iOS device, or possibly used "stand-alone" attached to an existing watch-face that you already have and connecting only to an iOS device over BT4 or NFC.
I just can't see Apple getting into the business of fickle fashion, and determining the complete final look for something that many people consider jewelry, status or fashion statement. Leave that to Gucci, Breitling, Diesel, Fossil, Burberry, YSL... Mattel and Disney... or a smart hospital bracelet supplier.
I expect a price range for the "smart parts" to be between $150 - 400, and bands to go into the $1000s depending on material, bling and added functionality due to sensors.
Thanks for that article; I had forgotten about it.
Do you personally think this is a feasible solution? Unfortunately there weren't many responses to the article, and I for one don't think it will work. But then again, I'm not an engineer, and have zero knowledge on the topic of solar charging.
A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.
I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.
I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.
Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.
((( link and 1000 photos of fantasy gadget porn omitted )))
Bloorgh. I threw up a little in my mouth. Please god don't let the iWatch be more tech geek couture. If Woz wants to show it off next to the six other Android smart watches on his arm, Apple is doomed, do I need a /s at the end?
With all the rumored features… biofeedback, star counter, gravity manipulator, walk of shame transmogrifier, time travel… doesn't sound that pricey to me….
Isn't Apple design about simplicity, focus, and less-is-more?
Or are those days over, now that they're chasing the Samsung kitchen-sink-desperation, "design by throwing spaghetti on the wall" phablet market?
A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.
I would love for it to be solar powered.
I bought a Casio g shock watch for around $200 a couple of years ago, and I love how I will never, ever have to replace and buy another watch battery for the entire lifetime of the watch. I expect that watch to last longer than I will!
I got tired of replacing the battery on my previous watch almost every single year. What a waste of money and waste of time.
As for solar, remember one of the first digital watches was the SunWatch (I've looked and looked, but I can't find anything about it online, but I remember reading about it at the time.) Everything was embedded in a solid block of acrylic, and the whole top (what you'd call the face) was a solar cell, and the LED readout (before LCDs remember) was in the side. With the solar cell, you didn't need to push a button to see the time, like all the others. (It also had buttons on the side that allowed you to observe how many seconds you gained or lost in a week or a month and gradually hone in on the exact right rate of going, a feature I wish all watches had.)
All that said, what happened to the weights self-winding watches have had since time immemorial? Couldn't they turn a generator and produce enough energy with the motions of your arm to power a watch?
Thanks for that article; I had forgotten about it.
Do you personally think this is a feasible solution? Unfortunately there weren't many responses to the article, and I for one don't think it will work. But then again, I'm not an engineer, and have zero knowledge on the topic of solar charging.
A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.
I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.
I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.
Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.
Considering that we know Apple has a patent for solar, we know they have investigated solar charging. We also know that several companies use solar charging for watches. Given current market offerings, we know that battery life is a significant issue. Whether or not Apple will use solar charging though, I can not say.
A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.
I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.
I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.
Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.
In my eyes the available surface area on a watch just doesn't seem sufficient for solar power to have a significant influence on battery life. There is pretty much no doubt that it will have to be wirelessly charged every few days. Even current mechanical/smartwatch devices only get about 5-7 days.
Considering that we know Apple has a patent for solar, we know they have investigated solar charging. We also know that several companies use solar charging for watches. Given current market offerings, we know that battery life is a significant issue. Whether or not Apple will use solar charging though, I can not say.
A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement. It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television. All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened. I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist. Nice one.
With all due respect, noone here can give their opinion on this pricepoint, because noone yet knows what the **** the iWatch is, its capabilities and purpose, and if such theoretical pricepoint is justified.
A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement. It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television. All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened. I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist. Nice one.
It gives Wall Street and the clown car full of analysts leverage over Apple's stock (for a while). They'll jointly tank the stock after no watch appears.
JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product
If there was a way to upvote you I would. We don't know what it is, when it will come out or what it looks like. We have no idea of price. $400 is too expensive for what? $99 is too cheap for what?
Apple has kept this secret well, and that makes sense. The manufacturing of watches is easier to hide and may be done entirely within one factory.
It's the little thumbs-up symbol next to the quote and multiquote buttons. Unfortunately, if you have Javascript disabled, which I do 99% of the time, it doesn't work.
...if you have Javascript disabled, which I do 99% of the time...
Wait, it’s 1997?
Could be, I don't have my iWatch on to check.... A lot of the sites I regularly visit are infected with exceptionally virulent strains of Javascript, what can I tell you? Once we've killed Flash, maybe we can take on Javascript next?
Comments
+1 - I've already written enough in other posts on this topic for people to see what I think this product will be.
However for those too bothered to look a quick summary. I also believe the iWatch will be a 2-part accessory to iOS devices:
a) watch-styled face for QuickLook and reaction buttons (yes-no-later-sleep to iOS events, reminders, etc.) designed by Apple for people that want this functionality;
b) separate bands - both as fashion/individuality statements and additional functionality through integrated tech sensors in the bands themselves. Whether that tech interfaces with the Apple watch-face, or directly with an iOS device, or possibly used "stand-alone" attached to an existing watch-face that you already have and connecting only to an iOS device over BT4 or NFC.
I just can't see Apple getting into the business of fickle fashion, and determining the complete final look for something that many people consider jewelry, status or fashion statement. Leave that to Gucci, Breitling, Diesel, Fossil, Burberry, YSL... Mattel and Disney... or a smart hospital bracelet supplier.
I expect a price range for the "smart parts" to be between $150 - 400, and bands to go into the $1000s depending on material, bling and added functionality due to sensors.
Thanks for that article; I had forgotten about it.
Do you personally think this is a feasible solution? Unfortunately there weren't many responses to the article, and I for one don't think it will work. But then again, I'm not an engineer, and have zero knowledge on the topic of solar charging.
A Timex is not a Rolex! I'm confident there will be iWatch models for every buyer. But WTF do I know?
A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.
I've tended towards thermal body energy... but can see both of these forward-thinking technologies being utilized in the same device by Apple.
I doubt very (very!) much that you will have to plug it into something to charge "regularly". Maybe once a year if ever.
Battery tech and sensor/radio optimization will be the "aha moment" and future thinking I expect from Apple to differentiate itself and these products. Similar to working 64-bit into their chips and software for iOS before anyone else had a clue that it was even feasible.
((( link and 1000 photos of fantasy gadget porn omitted )))
Bloorgh. I threw up a little in my mouth. Please god don't let the iWatch be more tech geek couture. If Woz wants to show it off next to the six other Android smart watches on his arm, Apple is doomed, do I need a /s at the end?
With all the rumored features… biofeedback, star counter, gravity manipulator, walk of shame transmogrifier, time travel… doesn't sound that pricey to me….
Isn't Apple design about simplicity, focus, and less-is-more?
Or are those days over, now that they're chasing the Samsung kitchen-sink-desperation, "design by throwing spaghetti on the wall" phablet market?
A number of other posters on previous threads have mentioned the possibility of solar.
I would love for it to be solar powered.
I bought a Casio g shock watch for around $200 a couple of years ago, and I love how I will never, ever have to replace and buy another watch battery for the entire lifetime of the watch. I expect that watch to last longer than I will!
I got tired of replacing the battery on my previous watch almost every single year. What a waste of money and waste of time.
All that said, what happened to the weights self-winding watches have had since time immemorial? Couldn't they turn a generator and produce enough energy with the motions of your arm to power a watch?
Considering that we know Apple has a patent for solar, we know they have investigated solar charging. We also know that several companies use solar charging for watches. Given current market offerings, we know that battery life is a significant issue. Whether or not Apple will use solar charging though, I can not say.
A very reasoned response; thanks
A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement. It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television. All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened. I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist. Nice one.
With all due respect, noone here can give their opinion on this pricepoint, because noone yet knows what the **** the iWatch is, its capabilities and purpose, and if such theoretical pricepoint is justified.
A product that does not even exist…people will whine and cry when there is no "iWatch" announcement. It was not long ago that people were commenting about another Apple product that does not exist, an Apple-branded Television. All similar comments about that hypothetical product, and fake release dates…and it never happened. I like the first comment…a bunch of hypochondriacs waiting in line for a product that does not exist. Nice one.
It gives Wall Street and the clown car full of analysts leverage over Apple's stock (for a while). They'll jointly tank the stock after no watch appears.
Apple can do technology, but can it do jewelry? How is the device going to be perceived in value?
BREAKING NEWS: Price Unknown for Unknown Product
JUST IN: Commenters Commenting on Price Being Too High or Low for Unknown Product
If there was a way to upvote you I would. We don't know what it is, when it will come out or what it looks like. We have no idea of price. $400 is too expensive for what? $99 is too cheap for what?
Apple has kept this secret well, and that makes sense. The manufacturing of watches is easier to hide and may be done entirely within one factory.
It's the little thumbs-up symbol next to the quote and multiquote buttons. Unfortunately, if you have Javascript disabled, which I do 99% of the time, it doesn't work.
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
Wait, it’s 1997?
Could be, I don't have my iWatch on to check.... A lot of the sites I regularly visit are infected with exceptionally virulent strains of Javascript, what can I tell you? Once we've killed Flash, maybe we can take on Javascript next?