Apple said that specifically? The iPhone has to be "nearby?" I agree it makes sense, but I'm curious to know for sure.
They did say you have to have it on your person. I agree that it would be great if it wasn't required to be close but there is no way they would ever allow it to not be directly connected to Apple Watch. Introducing any open networks would create too many security and performance issues.
That's the exact opposite of what Leo Laporte said on his radio show recently!
I think Leo knows Apple Watch will sell 10x more units than all other competing smart watches. He just doesn't think Apple Watch is that good. But then he hasn't even touched one personally so I'm not putting any faith in his predictions either.
The WiFi connection is meaningless without the nearby iPhone. All the apps, most of the processing and all of the cellular connection is done in the iPhone first.
Not entirely true. Native apps will be coming out. Apple has revised XCode to allow for that.
My guess...it'll use Bluetooth and WiFi to create a secure connection. Sort of like how airdrop works.
Except WiFi uses a lot more power than Bluetooth. Not sure why they would need that kind of higher speed connection to send over the minimal data the watch would need. People aren't going to be watching movies on their watches. It's mainly notifications, mp3s, and biometrics data. Right?
I’ll take this opportunity to say that I, too, am not convinced that wearables will go mainstream with the launch of the Apple Watch.
It will be interesting to see how successful it is in the first few months. Obviously, it's a given that it will fail compared to the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad, but will Cook give it the chop Newton-style, or will he let Ive potter over it in the preserved Barn like the other hobby, the Apple TV?
I, for one, predict that Cook will be leading a Barn-dance over its premature grave, sadly.
We shall find out soon.
But you're not in favor of this type of technology anyway. I would therefor expect you to be skeptical. I also remember that when cellphones first came out, people were saying that they would never be practical. We need to give it some time. Apple's watch seems to be much better, from what we do know, than what's out now, which seems marginal, at best.
They did say you have to have it on your person. I agree that it would be great if it wasn't required to be close but there is no way they would ever allow it to not be directly connected to Apple Watch. Introducing any open networks would create too many security and performance issues.
Well OK. I don't recall hearing that in the unveil or otherwise. Pretty sure it runs on BT4.0, and that does have something of a limited range. Some people have pretty big houses or work in big offices. I can see Apple making an effort to make that connection between iPhone and Apple Watch very stable. Power consumption of the Watch is going to be an issue for some time (!) and I think BT takes far less power than wifi. So, when the Watch sees iPhone via BT, it goes to that. If not, perhaps it looks to wifi and the current network to find the iPhone, but does so without a continuous and power hungry connection?
I’ll take this opportunity to say that I, too, am not convinced that wearables will go mainstream with the launch of the Apple Watch.
It will be interesting to see how successful it is in the first few months. Obviously, it's a given that it will fail compared to the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad, but will Cook give it the chop Newton-style, or will he let Ive potter over it in the preserved Barn like the other hobby, the Apple TV?
I, for one, predict that Cook will be leading a Barn-dance over its premature grave, sadly.
We shall find out soon.
I think the Apple TV will sell better than the watch. Like you, I'm not sold on the idea of wearables. Apple has to convince me that the watch is better than just pulling my phone out of my pocket. And so far I've seen nothing to convince me that the watch will enhance my life in any meaningful way. Send a heartbeat? Really? The way they've been falling over themselves over this silly gimmick of a feature tells me that the watch isn't all that.
I'd love to go t-mobile but AT&T (and Verizon) coverage is much better.
Having been on AT&T, and now being on T-mobile, I'd say it's somewhat better in some areas. Wouldn't go as far as to say it's MUCH better. Of course, that's just in my experience.
I predict John Legere will swap the pink tshirt for a black turtleneck.
He'd get my attention in a particular set of circumstances, totally a fresh breath in Corplandia among all the grey personalities, especially in the cellco world, tho' Tim looks to be settled in with a group he can work with for at least a few years to come, and most of the colorful PC revolutionaries are moved onto other pursuits, gone, or likely to retire in not that long (could Larry Ellison be thinking about packing it in?), and the first internet generation's getting middle-aged, tho' Jeff Bezos is still thinking big and leading, and the Google founders still seem to matter over there, but after that, off the top of my head it starts to come down to whether you think Mark Zuckerberg's as colorful as he's been impactful. (He reminds me more of Gates - geeky but behind that awkwardness much more an aggressive businessman than a visionary, and pretty relentlessly determined to own and grow whatever space he can drive his company into.)
There's no denying, though, the "valley's" generally gotten a lot more "corporate" and less "Jobsian," and while new billionaires are still occasionally minted, it's mostly a bigger player's game - how many people can name the CEO's of Intel, HP, etc. (oh wait, Michael Dell's still in the game, I forgot, but he was kind of dragged back in - still, cred, 'cos he's mostly holding his own in a difficult PC climate) - anyway, in the US at least (there's the Alibaba guy in China) the rising entrepreneurs usually join the b-boy's club by having their companies acquired, with many becoming aqui-hires
Legere's the kind of guy that comes into a situation heading south and is good for stirring things up by getting the rest of the company to think different and battle like happy underdogs with an attitude. So likely not unless Apple started to seriously stumble... ...something of which there's no real signs, given trends and the fat look of their pipeline going forward.
If he ever did take the reins tho' it would be a case of "holy culture shock!" and a new era, making changes on a scale that far dwarf any in Tim's wildest dreams, as he's been the keeper of the flames for the original ones.... ...and I can just imagine Legere and Sir Jonny sorting their relationship out....
The WiFi connection is meaningless without the nearby iPhone. All the apps, most of the processing and all of the cellular connection is done in the iPhone first.
Considering that it has probably as much processor power as a Iphone 5, not sure what your talking about. I calculated that just using a 20nm process and ultra low clock it could run all day long as a Blue tooth music player. What uses the most power is the screen, not even the processor. Wifi is too power hungry, but the new standard from bluetooth increases throughput and makes it possible for it to replace WIFI as a TCP/IP transport. Wouldn't be surprised if routers start supporting it (and Apple pay), very soon. Then, people would only need a Bluetooth to WIFI (or CELL) on themselves (not neading a bulky battery on their wrist, (not even a phone) to access the net with the watch.
I hope 2015 will be the year that everyone keeps their phone in their bag.
It is just plain annoying when you are talking to someone who is constantly glancing at his phablet. And speaking of phablets, they take up the whole friggin' table space! Very rude.
For that alone, I'd like the ? watch to be a huge success: Wearing your digital life on your sleeve is less offensive than putting it on the table.
I hope 2015 will be the year that everyone keeps their phone in their bag.
It is just plain annoying when you are talking to someone who is constantly glancing at his phablet. And speaking of phablets, they take up the whole friggin' table space! Very rude.
For that alone, I'd like the ? watch to be a huge success: Wearing your digital life on your sleeve is less offensive than putting it on the table.
But then, people will be constantly glancing at their watches, replacing one form of rudeness for another.
But then, people will be constantly glancing at their watches, replacing one form of rudeness for another.
Well, you could have a subtle haptic poke on your wrist. It's going to make you feel less stressed, like someone tapping your shoulder when you should really leave. It would work for me as I am always running late for meetings.
Intelligent time - and not fitness - is the killing feature in the ? watch for me. I am surprised it is not very prominent in Apple's communication. It is a watch, right? Perhaps it is because of iCal that needs to be re-imagined?
Comments
True.
I'm not that old, though I may seem to have the wisdom of the accumulated knowledge of those 4,000 or so years.
Apple said that specifically? The iPhone has to be "nearby?" I agree it makes sense, but I'm curious to know for sure.
They did say you have to have it on your person. I agree that it would be great if it wasn't required to be close but there is no way they would ever allow it to not be directly connected to Apple Watch. Introducing any open networks would create too many security and performance issues.
That's the exact opposite of what Leo Laporte said on his radio show recently!
I think Leo knows Apple Watch will sell 10x more units than all other competing smart watches. He just doesn't think Apple Watch is that good. But then he hasn't even touched one personally so I'm not putting any faith in his predictions either.
Not entirely true. Native apps will be coming out. Apple has revised XCode to allow for that.
My guess...it'll use Bluetooth and WiFi to create a secure connection. Sort of like how airdrop works.
Except WiFi uses a lot more power than Bluetooth. Not sure why they would need that kind of higher speed connection to send over the minimal data the watch would need. People aren't going to be watching movies on their watches. It's mainly notifications, mp3s, and biometrics data. Right?
But you're not in favor of this type of technology anyway. I would therefor expect you to be skeptical. I also remember that when cellphones first came out, people were saying that they would never be practical. We need to give it some time. Apple's watch seems to be much better, from what we do know, than what's out now, which seems marginal, at best.
They did say you have to have it on your person. I agree that it would be great if it wasn't required to be close but there is no way they would ever allow it to not be directly connected to Apple Watch. Introducing any open networks would create too many security and performance issues.
Well OK. I don't recall hearing that in the unveil or otherwise. Pretty sure it runs on BT4.0, and that does have something of a limited range. Some people have pretty big houses or work in big offices. I can see Apple making an effort to make that connection between iPhone and Apple Watch very stable. Power consumption of the Watch is going to be an issue for some time (!) and I think BT takes far less power than wifi. So, when the Watch sees iPhone via BT, it goes to that. If not, perhaps it looks to wifi and the current network to find the iPhone, but does so without a continuous and power hungry connection?
Just looking forward to seeing how it all works.
Cough, cough.
I hope your cough gets better soon.
What does your accumulated wisdom say about it?;)
I think the Apple TV will sell better than the watch. Like you, I'm not sold on the idea of wearables. Apple has to convince me that the watch is better than just pulling my phone out of my pocket. And so far I've seen nothing to convince me that the watch will enhance my life in any meaningful way. Send a heartbeat? Really? The way they've been falling over themselves over this silly gimmick of a feature tells me that the watch isn't all that.
That you need stronger belief in my wisdom. ????
That we know nothing.
Having been on AT&T, and now being on T-mobile, I'd say it's somewhat better in some areas. Wouldn't go as far as to say it's MUCH better. Of course, that's just in my experience.
It was only hours away in 2014 BC. It will also be only hours away in mid-2015.
Just thought I'd point it out.
Well...in 2014BC you would have not have known it was "2014 BC" and could not have known 2015 AD was only hours away.
Just thought I'd point that out.
Guys, you could have just checked the calendar on your iPhone -4000/s!
I predict John Legere will swap the pink tshirt for a black turtleneck.
He'd get my attention in a particular set of circumstances, totally a fresh breath in Corplandia among all the grey personalities, especially in the cellco world, tho' Tim looks to be settled in with a group he can work with for at least a few years to come, and most of the colorful PC revolutionaries are moved onto other pursuits, gone, or likely to retire in not that long (could Larry Ellison be thinking about packing it in?), and the first internet generation's getting middle-aged, tho' Jeff Bezos is still thinking big and leading, and the Google founders still seem to matter over there, but after that, off the top of my head it starts to come down to whether you think Mark Zuckerberg's as colorful as he's been impactful. (He reminds me more of Gates - geeky but behind that awkwardness much more an aggressive businessman than a visionary, and pretty relentlessly determined to own and grow whatever space he can drive his company into.)
There's no denying, though, the "valley's" generally gotten a lot more "corporate" and less "Jobsian," and while new billionaires are still occasionally minted, it's mostly a bigger player's game - how many people can name the CEO's of Intel, HP, etc. (oh wait, Michael Dell's still in the game, I forgot, but he was kind of dragged back in - still, cred, 'cos he's mostly holding his own in a difficult PC climate) - anyway, in the US at least (there's the Alibaba guy in China) the rising entrepreneurs usually join the b-boy's club by having their companies acquired, with many becoming aqui-hires
Legere's the kind of guy that comes into a situation heading south and is good for stirring things up by getting the rest of the company to think different and battle like happy underdogs with an attitude. So likely not unless Apple started to seriously stumble... ...something of which there's no real signs, given trends and the fat look of their pipeline going forward.
If he ever did take the reins tho' it would be a case of "holy culture shock!" and a new era, making changes on a scale that far dwarf any in Tim's wildest dreams, as he's been the keeper of the flames for the original ones.... ...and I can just imagine Legere and Sir Jonny sorting their relationship out....
...no magenta Macs, please, tho'....
The WiFi connection is meaningless without the nearby iPhone. All the apps, most of the processing and all of the cellular connection is done in the iPhone first.
Considering that it has probably as much processor power as a Iphone 5, not sure what your talking about. I calculated that just using a 20nm process and ultra low clock it could run all day long as a Blue tooth music player. What uses the most power is the screen, not even the processor. Wifi is too power hungry, but the new standard from bluetooth increases throughput and makes it possible for it to replace WIFI as a TCP/IP transport. Wouldn't be surprised if routers start supporting it (and Apple pay), very soon. Then, people would only need a Bluetooth to WIFI (or CELL) on themselves (not neading a bulky battery on their wrist, (not even a phone) to access the net with the watch.
I hope 2015 will be the year that everyone keeps their phone in their bag.
It is just plain annoying when you are talking to someone who is constantly glancing at his phablet. And speaking of phablets, they take up the whole friggin' table space! Very rude.
For that alone, I'd like the ? watch to be a huge success: Wearing your digital life on your sleeve is less offensive than putting it on the table.
But then, people will be constantly glancing at their watches, replacing one form of rudeness for another.
But then, people will be constantly glancing at their watches, replacing one form of rudeness for another.
Well, you could have a subtle haptic poke on your wrist. It's going to make you feel less stressed, like someone tapping your shoulder when you should really leave. It would work for me as I am always running late for meetings.
Intelligent time - and not fitness - is the killing feature in the ? watch for me. I am surprised it is not very prominent in Apple's communication. It is a watch, right? Perhaps it is because of iCal that needs to be re-imagined?