No but isn't it difficult to get accurate data without GPS?
Ifnit was would all these fitness bands would be on the market and selling at rates much higher than the "smartwatches" category that came long before it?
It's not known if this requires the iPhone to authenticate or if you can do it from ?Watch but I suspect that you can use the digital crown to input a 4-digit PIN.
No, it has to be an iPhone 5 or newer device.
Well I would imagine 0-9 in a clock face orientation allowing you to punch in your 4-digit pin. Forget the crown.
I know Apple has said it requires an iPhone 5 or newer, but why? What's the limitation? If the watch can use ?Pay without an iPhone, then why do you need an iPhone to set it up? Seems like any device with a bluetooth or wifi antenna could do it, since it's that 4-digit code that's required. So what's so special about the iPhone 5 & up that users of previous generation iPhones, iPads and Macs can't also use to setup ?Watch? I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, but this part of it just doesn't make any sense.
Oh and here's a perfect example of using the watch without your phone ... You're on a trip, and someone steals your phone and your wallet. So you're basically without cash to buy a new iPhone or make any other purchases during your trip. All you have is the watch on your wrist. There's a selling point in there as long as you don't have to be thethered to an iPhone at some point.
Well I would imagine 0-9 in a clock face orientation allowing you to punch in your 4-digit pin. Forget the crown.
Makes sense.
I would like an option for doing a passcode and the digital crown would make easy work of that. Even if kept at 4 alphanumerics, 36<sup>4</sup> is inherently more secure than 10<sup>4</sup>. Note: I'll be surprised if that happens.
I know Apple has said it requires an iPhone 5 or newer, but why? What's the limitation?
That's a good question.
edit: BLE?
Oh and here's a perfect example of using the watch without your phone ... You're on a trip, and someone steals your phone and your wallet. So you're basically without cash to buy a new iPhone or make any other purchases during your trip. All you have is the watch on your wrist. There's a selling point in there as long as you don't have to be thethered to an iPhone at some point.
Could be a selling point but I'm not sure if theft of other personal items is a good marketing point.
No doubt, in a few years' time, you'll be able to export the data, if you've lived long enough.
Having mouthed off about the lack of export capability, I found out that you can, indeed, export the data, albeit in one big lump.
Having said that, the app is still hopelessly limited for no good reason. Considering the obscene profit that Apple makes, there is simply no excuse for this.
As does most post 2012 iPads and Macs, which is what also enables PeerToPeer over AirPlay.
So now I'm really curious ... Is it an arbitrary cut-off forcing a near current iPhone purchase? I mean if it's an iOS only implementation for now, the iPad can certainly handle that with no issues, as well as the iPod Touch. So I feel like there must be something about the iPhone pairing which the watch requires that other devices can't otherwise accommodate as easily ... I'm not sure the ?Watch is as autonomous a device as you are inferring, at least with respect to ?Pay.
As does most post 2012 iPads and Macs, which is what also enables PeerToPeer over AirPlay.
So now I'm really curious ... Is it an arbitrary cut-off forcing a near current iPhone purchase? I mean if it's an iOS only implementation for now, the iPad can certainly handle that with no issues, as well as the iPod Touch. So I feel like there must be something about the iPhone pairing which the watch requires that other devices can't otherwise accommodate as easily ... I'm not sure the ?Watch is as autonomous a device as you are inferring, at least with respect to ?Pay.
It's certainly not arbitrary or done for no reason. Just because it's not done for a technological reason doesn't mean there is no good reason from Apple's PoV.
One reason for not including the iPad is because it doesn't have the Passbook app so it won't have the ability to pass ?Pay data to the ?Watch via the app unless Apple added it (which they don't seem keen on doing) or adding a special app just for ?Pay setup (which seems unlikely).
As for the iPhone 5 being the cutoff but the iPhone 4S apparently having BLE, what about usage reasons. The iPhone 4S came out in 2011. A couple things come to mind: Percentage of people using the iPhone 4S, the iPhone 4S is EOL for iOS (read: isn't likely to be supported by iOS 9 which should demo about 3months after the ?Watch launches), -and- the people that are willing to spend $350 to a rumoured $5,000 for an ?Watch aren't likely to be using an antiquated iPhone model.
Finally, there is logistics to consider, which goes along with the usage numbers. If the number of people truly interested in the ?Watch that are using an iPhone 4S are so low that they feel it would be a waste of their time supporting another device then there is no need to do it. Or, there could be logistics reason that make it easier for Apple to drop the 3:2 iPhone support for Xcode for iOS 9 to only support the 16:9 aspect ratios which may have some benefit in building and testing code in their apps. Note: I don't know how that would make a difference but I can't simply ignore it when there is likely a complete drop of the 3:2 aspect ratio coming in about half a year.
As does most post 2012 iPads and Macs, which is what also enables PeerToPeer over AirPlay.
So now I'm really curious ... Is it an arbitrary cut-off forcing a near current iPhone purchase? I mean if it's an iOS only implementation for now, the iPad can certainly handle that with no issues, as well as the iPod Touch. So I feel like there must be something about the iPhone pairing which the watch requires that other devices can't otherwise accommodate as easily ... I'm not sure the ?Watch is as autonomous a device as you are inferring, at least with respect to ?Pay.
It's certainly not arbitrary or done for no reason. Just because it's not done for a technological reason doesn't mean there is no good reason from Apple's PoV.
One reason for not including the iPad is because it doesn't have the Passbook app so it won't have the ability to pass ?Pay data to the ?Watch via the app unless Apple added it (which they don't seem keen on doing) or adding a special app just for ?Pay setup (which seems unlikely).
As for the iPhone 5 being the cutoff but the iPhone 4S apparently having BLE, what about usage reasons. The iPhone 4S came out in 2011. A couple things come to mind: Percentage of people using the iPhone 4S, the iPhone 4S is EOL for iOS (read: isn't likely to be supported by iOS 9 which should demo about 3months after the ?Watch launches), -and- the people that are willing to spend $350 to a rumoured $5,000 for an ?Watch aren't likely to be using an antiquated iPhone model.
Finally, there is logistics to consider, which goes along with the usage numbers. If the number of people truly interested in the ?Watch that are using an iPhone 4S are so low that they feel it would be a waste of their time supporting another device then there is no need to do it. Or, there could be logistics reason that make it easier for Apple to drop the 3:2 iPhone support for Xcode for iOS 9 to only support the 16:9 aspect ratios which may have some benefit in building and testing code in their apps. Note: I don't know how that would make a difference but I can't simply ignore it when there is likely a complete drop of the 3:2 aspect ratio coming in about half a year.
I wonder if Apple are planning to introduce Passport to the iPad.
I have notification settings for Passport on my iPad, even though there is no app. On a similar note, I don't know why the Health app can't be included on the iPad. It would be a whole lot better than on the iPhone, and could be synced easily via iCloud.
It’s this kind of lack of attention to detail that is really letting Apple down at the moment, particularly the past two years.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">On a similar note, I don't know why the Health app can't be included on the iPad. It would be a whole lot better than on the iPhone,</span>
Why would it be "a whole lot better than on the iPhone”?
But yes, it should be on the iPad and Mac and sync between them all.
Because you'd be able to have lots of graphs, which would be much easier to analyse on the iPad.
It's certainly not arbitrary or done for no reason. Just because it's not done for a technological reason doesn't mean there is no good reason from Apple's PoV.
Well then you're saying that it's done for marketing purposes. In other words, you have to have an iPhone to have an ?Watch. I know a lot of people who have Android and Windows phones (or even Blackberrys), who also have iPads, iPod Touches, and/or Macs, and who have expressed interest in the ?Watch. But too bad, they're going to have get an iPhone to use it, because Apple is not going to support it on their iPad, or Mac, even though they probably easily could.
So I'll side with Benjamin Frost, and presume Apple is going to launch ?Pay first on the iPhone 5 and up, then open it up to the iPad & iPod Touch, and possibly the Mac as OS X and iOS continue to merge. At the end of the day, iOS 8 should support ?Pay on any device that has the necessary hardware, so I don't see any argument for omitting the 4S other than marketing. Perhaps Apple just doesn't care if people can't afford both an ?Watch, and a new iPhone, which is unfortunate considering there just might be people who would rather spend their money on an ?Watch, than upgrade their 4S, which is still a really great phone that runs the latest iOS ... and I'm thinking Apple could probably use as many ?Watch customers as possible, rather than yet another customer for an iPhone 6.
So I'm still not convinced ?Pay doesn't need the iPhone for more than just setup. Though it will be much more attractive to me if it doesn't. But all of my questions will be answered in a few short months, and I can decide if it's for me then, or not.
Well then you're saying that it's done for marketing purposes.
How the **** did you come to that conclusion? You know what, it doesn't matter how, you're just wrong to think it's about marketing*, and not about maximizing profits and efforts by keep their ship tighter.
So I'm still not convinced ?Pay doesn't need the iPhone for more than just setup.
I can't make you comprehend what's clearly available for you to read and listen.
So I'll side with Benjamin Frost, and presume Apple is going to launch ?Pay first on the iPhone 5 and up, then open it up to the iPad & iPod Touch, and possibly the Mac as OS X and iOS continue to merge.
**** me, now I know you're just trolling because no one is that stupid to think there is a hidden Secure Element, NFC chip and NFC antennas in the iPhone 5 from 2012 that no one ever noticed.
And OS X and iOS merging? **** your stupid comments.
* Is this the old meme that Apple has the same stuff as everyone else, but can charge more because they know how to market better? :no:
* Is this the old meme that Apple has the same stuff as everyone else, but can charge more because they know how to market better? :no:
No. Marketing encompasses profit motives. Why market and advertise if not to make money?
My conclusion is based on your analysis -- if there's no technological motive for leaving out the 4S, and not allowing ?Pay to be set up with other compatible devices, then it must be to sell more iPhones, arguably at the expense of selling more ?Watches, and making more ?Pay transactions. But, I'm also willing to accept that they want to ensure a smooth rollout on their current equipment, before they add compatibility with other currently unsupported equipment.
No. Marketing encompasses profit motives. Why market and advertise if not to make money?
My conclusion is based on your analysis -- if there's no technological motive for leaving out the 4S, and not allowing ?Pay to be set up with other compatible devices, then it must be to sell more iPhones, arguably at the expense of selling more ?Watches, and making more ?Pay transactions.
Ifnit was would all these fitness bands would be on the market and selling at rates much higher than the "smartwatches" category that came long before it?
All I know is the Nike+ app I use utilizes GPS. How many fitness bands out there don't have GPS? Note I'm not knocking ?Watch for not having it, I understand why it doesn't right now. But even Apple talks about pairing ?Watch with GPS and wifi from iPhone.
How do you add ?Pay to devices that don't have Touch ID or NFC?
Obviously the device that uses ?Pay must have NFC, so the ?Watch has it. The 5S, for example, doesn't. but that wouldn't stop it from being set up with a credit card in Passport, which then communicates with the Watch to enable the watch to use the credit card. And Touch ID is obviously not the only way to use ?Pay, just like you can use a 4-digit code to unlock your iPhone now, or Touch ID. My 5S currently will not let me add a credit card to Passport, so I assume that will come with an iOS update when the ?Watch rolls out in February. I am curious how the ?Watch will allow the user to authorize transactions. Whether it will require a code to be entered, or something else.
Either way Touch ID is not vital to ?Pay, just convenient. The real issue seems to be NFC. I've brought this up before as to why a third party company like Incipio couldn't create an external NFC antenna like their CashWrap for ?Pay, which would allow any iOS device to use it.
By the way, my dog has a GPS tracker collar about the size of an ?Watch which lasts a week on a charge, and it's constantly sending me location alerts via cellular radio when my dog walker takes her out. It also tracks her fitness activity all day. Now this is hardly the same thing, but why not have the ability to use it, and leave it up to the user to turn it on or off as needed, with the trade off being battery life?
The 5S, for example, doesn't. but that wouldn't stop it from being set up with a credit card in Passport, which then communicates with the Watch to enable the watch to use the credit card.
How do you add ?Pay to devices that don't have Touch ID or NFC?
Also -- ?Pay is for use with with internet purchases, which don't need NFC -- it's the only way you use ?Pay at Target right now. Nor do you technically need Touch ID. So there's even more confusion as to whether or not an iPhone 5, 5S & 5C will support ?Pay via the internet once the ?Watch enables it. I would imagine, setting up a credit card on a phone without such hardware support would be no different than setting it up on a phone that has it. And if that's the case, then why couldn't any device running iOS 8 and Yosemite support it, at least for internet purchases, as well as set up the ?Watch?
Comments
Ifnit was would all these fitness bands would be on the market and selling at rates much higher than the "smartwatches" category that came long before it?
I know Apple has said it requires an iPhone 5 or newer, but why? What's the limitation? If the watch can use ?Pay without an iPhone, then why do you need an iPhone to set it up? Seems like any device with a bluetooth or wifi antenna could do it, since it's that 4-digit code that's required. So what's so special about the iPhone 5 & up that users of previous generation iPhones, iPads and Macs can't also use to setup ?Watch? I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, but this part of it just doesn't make any sense.
Oh and here's a perfect example of using the watch without your phone ... You're on a trip, and someone steals your phone and your wallet. So you're basically without cash to buy a new iPhone or make any other purchases during your trip. All you have is the watch on your wrist. There's a selling point in there as long as you don't have to be thethered to an iPhone at some point.
What the **** happened to you?
Makes sense.
I would like an option for doing a passcode and the digital crown would make easy work of that. Even if kept at 4 alphanumerics, 36<sup>4</sup> is inherently more secure than 10<sup>4</sup>. Note: I'll be surprised if that happens.
That's a good question.
edit: BLE?
Could be a selling point but I'm not sure if theft of other personal items is a good marketing point.
The Health app is pathetically limited.
No doubt, in a few years' time, you'll be able to export the data, if you've lived long enough.
Having mouthed off about the lack of export capability, I found out that you can, indeed, export the data, albeit in one big lump.
Having said that, the app is still hopelessly limited for no good reason. Considering the obscene profit that Apple makes, there is simply no excuse for this.
MEMO TO SELF: try not to be a fool.
So now I'm really curious ... Is it an arbitrary cut-off forcing a near current iPhone purchase? I mean if it's an iOS only implementation for now, the iPad can certainly handle that with no issues, as well as the iPod Touch. So I feel like there must be something about the iPhone pairing which the watch requires that other devices can't otherwise accommodate as easily ... I'm not sure the ?Watch is as autonomous a device as you are inferring, at least with respect to ?Pay.
It's certainly not arbitrary or done for no reason. Just because it's not done for a technological reason doesn't mean there is no good reason from Apple's PoV.
One reason for not including the iPad is because it doesn't have the Passbook app so it won't have the ability to pass ?Pay data to the ?Watch via the app unless Apple added it (which they don't seem keen on doing) or adding a special app just for ?Pay setup (which seems unlikely).
As for the iPhone 5 being the cutoff but the iPhone 4S apparently having BLE, what about usage reasons. The iPhone 4S came out in 2011. A couple things come to mind: Percentage of people using the iPhone 4S, the iPhone 4S is EOL for iOS (read: isn't likely to be supported by iOS 9 which should demo about 3months after the ?Watch launches), -and- the people that are willing to spend $350 to a rumoured $5,000 for an ?Watch aren't likely to be using an antiquated iPhone model.
Finally, there is logistics to consider, which goes along with the usage numbers. If the number of people truly interested in the ?Watch that are using an iPhone 4S are so low that they feel it would be a waste of their time supporting another device then there is no need to do it. Or, there could be logistics reason that make it easier for Apple to drop the 3:2 iPhone support for Xcode for iOS 9 to only support the 16:9 aspect ratios which may have some benefit in building and testing code in their apps. Note: I don't know how that would make a difference but I can't simply ignore it when there is likely a complete drop of the 3:2 aspect ratio coming in about half a year.
As does most post 2012 iPads and Macs, which is what also enables PeerToPeer over AirPlay.
So now I'm really curious ... Is it an arbitrary cut-off forcing a near current iPhone purchase? I mean if it's an iOS only implementation for now, the iPad can certainly handle that with no issues, as well as the iPod Touch. So I feel like there must be something about the iPhone pairing which the watch requires that other devices can't otherwise accommodate as easily ... I'm not sure the ?Watch is as autonomous a device as you are inferring, at least with respect to ?Pay.
It's certainly not arbitrary or done for no reason. Just because it's not done for a technological reason doesn't mean there is no good reason from Apple's PoV.
One reason for not including the iPad is because it doesn't have the Passbook app so it won't have the ability to pass ?Pay data to the ?Watch via the app unless Apple added it (which they don't seem keen on doing) or adding a special app just for ?Pay setup (which seems unlikely).
As for the iPhone 5 being the cutoff but the iPhone 4S apparently having BLE, what about usage reasons. The iPhone 4S came out in 2011. A couple things come to mind: Percentage of people using the iPhone 4S, the iPhone 4S is EOL for iOS (read: isn't likely to be supported by iOS 9 which should demo about 3months after the ?Watch launches), -and- the people that are willing to spend $350 to a rumoured $5,000 for an ?Watch aren't likely to be using an antiquated iPhone model.
Finally, there is logistics to consider, which goes along with the usage numbers. If the number of people truly interested in the ?Watch that are using an iPhone 4S are so low that they feel it would be a waste of their time supporting another device then there is no need to do it. Or, there could be logistics reason that make it easier for Apple to drop the 3:2 iPhone support for Xcode for iOS 9 to only support the 16:9 aspect ratios which may have some benefit in building and testing code in their apps. Note: I don't know how that would make a difference but I can't simply ignore it when there is likely a complete drop of the 3:2 aspect ratio coming in about half a year.
I wonder if Apple are planning to introduce Passport to the iPad.
I have notification settings for Passport on my iPad, even though there is no app. On a similar note, I don't know why the Health app can't be included on the iPad. It would be a whole lot better than on the iPhone, and could be synced easily via iCloud.
It’s this kind of lack of attention to detail that is really letting Apple down at the moment, particularly the past two years.
No!
On a similar note, I don't know why the Health app can't be included on the iPad. It would be a whole lot better than on the iPhone,
Why would it be "a whole lot better than on the iPhone”?
But yes, it should be on the iPad and Mac and sync between them all.
Because you'd be able to have lots of graphs, which would be much easier to analyse on the iPad.
It's certainly not arbitrary or done for no reason. Just because it's not done for a technological reason doesn't mean there is no good reason from Apple's PoV.
Well then you're saying that it's done for marketing purposes. In other words, you have to have an iPhone to have an ?Watch. I know a lot of people who have Android and Windows phones (or even Blackberrys), who also have iPads, iPod Touches, and/or Macs, and who have expressed interest in the ?Watch. But too bad, they're going to have get an iPhone to use it, because Apple is not going to support it on their iPad, or Mac, even though they probably easily could.
So I'll side with Benjamin Frost, and presume Apple is going to launch ?Pay first on the iPhone 5 and up, then open it up to the iPad & iPod Touch, and possibly the Mac as OS X and iOS continue to merge. At the end of the day, iOS 8 should support ?Pay on any device that has the necessary hardware, so I don't see any argument for omitting the 4S other than marketing. Perhaps Apple just doesn't care if people can't afford both an ?Watch, and a new iPhone, which is unfortunate considering there just might be people who would rather spend their money on an ?Watch, than upgrade their 4S, which is still a really great phone that runs the latest iOS ... and I'm thinking Apple could probably use as many ?Watch customers as possible, rather than yet another customer for an iPhone 6.
So I'm still not convinced ?Pay doesn't need the iPhone for more than just setup. Though it will be much more attractive to me if it doesn't. But all of my questions will be answered in a few short months, and I can decide if it's for me then, or not.
How the **** did you come to that conclusion? You know what, it doesn't matter how, you're just wrong to think it's about marketing*, and not about maximizing profits and efforts by keep their ship tighter.
I can't make you comprehend what's clearly available for you to read and listen.
**** me, now I know you're just trolling because no one is that stupid to think there is a hidden Secure Element, NFC chip and NFC antennas in the iPhone 5 from 2012 that no one ever noticed.
And OS X and iOS merging? **** your stupid comments.
* Is this the old meme that Apple has the same stuff as everyone else, but can charge more because they know how to market better? :no:
My conclusion is based on your analysis -- if there's no technological motive for leaving out the 4S, and not allowing ?Pay to be set up with other compatible devices, then it must be to sell more iPhones, arguably at the expense of selling more ?Watches, and making more ?Pay transactions. But, I'm also willing to accept that they want to ensure a smooth rollout on their current equipment, before they add compatibility with other currently unsupported equipment.
Pathetic. :no:
All I know is the Nike+ app I use utilizes GPS. How many fitness bands out there don't have GPS? Note I'm not knocking ?Watch for not having it, I understand why it doesn't right now. But even Apple talks about pairing ?Watch with GPS and wifi from iPhone.
Either way Touch ID is not vital to ?Pay, just convenient. The real issue seems to be NFC. I've brought this up before as to why a third party company like Incipio couldn't create an external NFC antenna like their CashWrap for ?Pay, which would allow any iOS device to use it.
By the way, my dog has a GPS tracker collar about the size of an ?Watch which lasts a week on a charge, and it's constantly sending me location alerts via cellular radio when my dog walker takes her out. It also tracks her fitness activity all day. Now this is hardly the same thing, but why not have the ability to use it, and leave it up to the user to turn it on or off as needed, with the trade off being battery life?
How do you add ?Pay to devices that don't have Touch ID or NFC?
Also -- ?Pay is for use with with internet purchases, which don't need NFC -- it's the only way you use ?Pay at Target right now. Nor do you technically need Touch ID. So there's even more confusion as to whether or not an iPhone 5, 5S & 5C will support ?Pay via the internet once the ?Watch enables it. I would imagine, setting up a credit card on a phone without such hardware support would be no different than setting it up on a phone that has it. And if that's the case, then why couldn't any device running iOS 8 and Yosemite support it, at least for internet purchases, as well as set up the ?Watch?