Is there a technical reason why Apple couldn't have put a touchID sensor inside the crown? If it's simply a size issue, perhaps v2 will be able to shrink the sensor enough such that it will fit? It seems like a perfect spot for it to me - and quite obvious - so I have no doubt they considered it (however briefly) and had a very good reason for not doing it in the v1 offering. Does anyone know what that very good reason might be?
There is a huge technical reason. In its current state, the crown is little more than a metal shaft that slides and rotates. To add a sensor to the crown means also routing signal leads through the shaft. The signal leads require an input socket to link to the mainboard of the Watch.
A crown also requires the freedom to rotate through unlimited angles both clockwise and counterclockwise. There is a fundamental conflict between connecting sensor leads and the requirement unlimited rotation of the crown shaft. To date, it has proven impossible to resolve this conflict.
I think you might have missed the point Kit_C and I were making. We were commenting on someone else's criticism that the Apple Watch's crown wasn't knurled deeply enough. I pointed out that it was as knurled as it needed to be, considering its intended usage and in adherence to Apple's minimalist-modern design ethic. Kit_C concurred, citing his two mechanical watches and the reason why their crowns are shaped the way they are.
I might have missed the point. But nevertheless I agree with you. My point is that doing this for this particular iteration of the ?Watch would be a stylistic choice at best, one that could be solved with an "enhancer" for those that want it. Once the ?Watch has an IPX8 water resistance rating, and can operate at sub-freezing temperatures, then I'd say Apple might want to consider that aspect of its design. Heck they might decide to do a more "robust" industrial-looking design offering at some point anyway, just for fashion reasons.
There is a huge technical reason. In its current state, the crown is little more than a metal shaft that slides and rotates. To add a sensor to the crown means also routing signal leads through the shaft. The signal leads require an input socket to link to the mainboard of the Watch.
A crown also requires the freedom to rotate through unlimited angles both clockwise and counterclockwise. There is a fundamental conflict between connecting sensor leads and the requirement unlimited rotation of the crown shaft. To date, it has proven impossible to resolve this conflict.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Granted size could be the sticking point, but It seems like there could be an independent central shaft for the button that depresses independently of the outer turning shaft for the crown. I'm not sure why this would be an engineering impossibility. I have buttons on audio equipment that work like this.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Granted size could be the sticking point, but It seems like there could be an independent central shaft for the button that depresses independently of the outer turning shaft for the crown. I'm not sure why this would be an engineering impossibility. I have buttons on audio equipment that work like this.
Your audio equipment has controls with limits on their rotation both clockwise and counterclockwise. In motor vehicle steering wheel parlance, they are known as "lock-to-lock." In the case of passenger cars, their steering wheels may have 3 turns lock-to-lock.
The controls on the amplifiers in This is Spinal Tap went from "0" to "11." However, they likely had limits less than a single turn. As I said before, a watch crown is expected to rotate in either direction without limits. There are no locks; there is no "0"; and there is no "11." Adding a second shaft does nothing to make this possible if there are sensor leads with fixed attachment points on the interior of the case.
Your audio equipment has controls with limits on their rotation both clockwise and counterclockwise. In motor vehicle steering wheel parlance, they are known as "lock-to-lock." In the case of passenger cars, their steering wheels may have 3 turns lock-to-lock.
The controls on the amplifiers in This is Spinal Tap went from "0" to "11." However, they likely had limits less than a single turn. As I said before, a watch crown is expected to rotate in either direction without limits. There are no locks; there is no "0"; and there is no "11." Adding a second shaft does nothing to make this possible if there are sensor leads with fixed attachment points on the interior of the case.
It's digital equipment. The volume knob rotates in either direction unlimited. The center of the knob is an on/off button. So I'm not sure how this is possible but not possible on the watch, unless of course there's no room for the connections inside.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Granted size could be the sticking point, but It seems like there could be an independent central shaft for the button that depresses independently of the outer turning shaft for the crown. I'm not sure why this would be an engineering impossibility. I have buttons on audio equipment that work like this.
I agree. It may not be easy or straightforward - but I think it's far from impossible - and not as challenging as some of the other engineering issues they've already solved. I don't actually get my watch until tomorrow - but I didn't think that the crown actually rotated physically. I thought it just detected the movement of your finger across its edges to simulate rotation. But either way - I don't see it being as difficult from an engineering standpoint as Mr. Me makes it sound. I'm guessing that the size is currently the insurmountable hurdle - and hopefully that won't be an issue in future versions.
It's digital equipment. The volume knob rotates in either direction unlimited. The center of the knob is an on/off button. So I'm not sure how this is possible but not possible on the watch, unless of course there's no room for the connections inside.
Analog or digital, clearly audio volume has a lower limit--dead silence. I am not aware of a defined upper limit to volume, but there is most certainly a practical upper limit--perhaps several practical upper limits. The limit that trumps them all is the limit to the current that your amplifier can produce. Suffice it to say, I don't see the point of unlimited rotation for a knob that controls a physical quantity with well-defined limits. But if you say so, I will reserve judgment until I see the component.
That on-off switch in the center of the volume control knob is an example of the limitations of multiplexing functions in the control. Irrespective of the physics of the switch, it must produce no more than two values--"0" and "1"--in one bit. Many such controls produce only one value--a pulse flips "off" to "on"; another pulse flip "on" to "off." The sensor that you envision in the Watch crown must handle a data path that is much wider that one bit. You cannot build a parallel two-bit data path through a infinitely rotatable connection that allows a slide between two positions. You most certainly cannot transmit a parallel bit stream that is wide enough to identify a fingerprint through such a connection.
Is there a technical reason why Apple couldn't have put a touchID sensor inside the crown? If it's simply a size issue, perhaps v2 will be able to shrink the sensor enough such that it will fit? It seems like a perfect spot for it to me - and quite obvious - so I have no doubt they considered it (however briefly) and had a very good reason for not doing it in the v1 offering. Does anyone know what that very good reason might be?
I would imagine that the crown is too small to get a meaningful fingerprint sample. when you only look at a tiny area of the finger, they look pretty similar. The iPhone/iPad buttons allow a significant portion of the center of the finger (the most unique part) to be sampled. The crown would sample only a fraction of that area.
I would imagine that the crown is too small to get a meaningful fingerprint sample. when you only look at a tiny area of the finger, they look pretty similar. The iPhone/iPad buttons allow a significant portion of the center of the finger (the most unique part) to be sampled. The crown would sample only a fraction of that area.
Thanks. That's kind of what i suspected. It would just be so damn convenient to have it there if they could manage to figure out some way to make it work (as reliably and as well as it does on the phones).
Suffice it to say, I don't see the point of unlimited rotation for a knob that controls a physical quantity with well-defined limits.
That on-off switch in the center of the volume control knob is an example of the limitations of multiplexing functions in the control.
Again, its pretty common on digital equipment -- it's a multifunction button which does different things depending on what function is selected. I have one of these on my microwave oven as well. That said, If there's a path through the infinitely rotational outer ring, then I don't see why it has to be limited to a single function. Again, it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable engineering problem. At the end of the day, I agree with others that the useful size of the fingerprint sampler on the digital crown would be insufficient to make this a practical effort. The ?Watch would be better off reading retinas for that level of security.
I would imagine that the crown is too small to get a meaningful fingerprint sample. when you only look at a tiny area of the finger, they look pretty similar. The iPhone/iPad buttons allow a significant portion of the center of the finger (the most unique part) to be sampled. The crown would sample only a fraction of that area.
I initially agreed with this, but now I'm rethinking it when I saw this picture:
The amount of the finger accessed by the button is about as much as I routinely press my touch ID with. Maybe slightly less, but considering Touch ID already takes multiple samples, I'd say there's enough in that slight contact, based on my experience with my iPhone to do the job. In fact it will probably ore accurate than the placement on my touch ID at present.
Comments
A crown also requires the freedom to rotate through unlimited angles both clockwise and counterclockwise. There is a fundamental conflict between connecting sensor leads and the requirement unlimited rotation of the crown shaft. To date, it has proven impossible to resolve this conflict.
I think you might have missed the point Kit_C and I were making. We were commenting on someone else's criticism that the Apple Watch's crown wasn't knurled deeply enough. I pointed out that it was as knurled as it needed to be, considering its intended usage and in adherence to Apple's minimalist-modern design ethic. Kit_C concurred, citing his two mechanical watches and the reason why their crowns are shaped the way they are.
I might have missed the point. But nevertheless I agree with you. My point is that doing this for this particular iteration of the ?Watch would be a stylistic choice at best, one that could be solved with an "enhancer" for those that want it. Once the ?Watch has an IPX8 water resistance rating, and can operate at sub-freezing temperatures, then I'd say Apple might want to consider that aspect of its design. Heck they might decide to do a more "robust" industrial-looking design offering at some point anyway, just for fashion reasons.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Granted size could be the sticking point, but It seems like there could be an independent central shaft for the button that depresses independently of the outer turning shaft for the crown. I'm not sure why this would be an engineering impossibility. I have buttons on audio equipment that work like this.
The controls on the amplifiers in This is Spinal Tap went from "0" to "11." However, they likely had limits less than a single turn. As I said before, a watch crown is expected to rotate in either direction without limits. There are no locks; there is no "0"; and there is no "11." Adding a second shaft does nothing to make this possible if there are sensor leads with fixed attachment points on the interior of the case.
It's digital equipment. The volume knob rotates in either direction unlimited. The center of the knob is an on/off button. So I'm not sure how this is possible but not possible on the watch, unless of course there's no room for the connections inside.
I agree. It may not be easy or straightforward - but I think it's far from impossible - and not as challenging as some of the other engineering issues they've already solved. I don't actually get my watch until tomorrow - but I didn't think that the crown actually rotated physically. I thought it just detected the movement of your finger across its edges to simulate rotation. But either way - I don't see it being as difficult from an engineering standpoint as Mr. Me makes it sound. I'm guessing that the size is currently the insurmountable hurdle - and hopefully that won't be an issue in future versions.
That on-off switch in the center of the volume control knob is an example of the limitations of multiplexing functions in the control. Irrespective of the physics of the switch, it must produce no more than two values--"0" and "1"--in one bit. Many such controls produce only one value--a pulse flips "off" to "on"; another pulse flip "on" to "off." The sensor that you envision in the Watch crown must handle a data path that is much wider that one bit. You cannot build a parallel two-bit data path through a infinitely rotatable connection that allows a slide between two positions. You most certainly cannot transmit a parallel bit stream that is wide enough to identify a fingerprint through such a connection.
Is there a technical reason why Apple couldn't have put a touchID sensor inside the crown? If it's simply a size issue, perhaps v2 will be able to shrink the sensor enough such that it will fit? It seems like a perfect spot for it to me - and quite obvious - so I have no doubt they considered it (however briefly) and had a very good reason for not doing it in the v1 offering. Does anyone know what that very good reason might be?
I would imagine that the crown is too small to get a meaningful fingerprint sample. when you only look at a tiny area of the finger, they look pretty similar. The iPhone/iPad buttons allow a significant portion of the center of the finger (the most unique part) to be sampled. The crown would sample only a fraction of that area.
Thanks. That's kind of what i suspected. It would just be so damn convenient to have it there if they could manage to figure out some way to make it work (as reliably and as well as it does on the phones).
Suffice it to say, I don't see the point of unlimited rotation for a knob that controls a physical quantity with well-defined limits.
That on-off switch in the center of the volume control knob is an example of the limitations of multiplexing functions in the control.
Again, its pretty common on digital equipment -- it's a multifunction button which does different things depending on what function is selected. I have one of these on my microwave oven as well. That said, If there's a path through the infinitely rotational outer ring, then I don't see why it has to be limited to a single function. Again, it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable engineering problem. At the end of the day, I agree with others that the useful size of the fingerprint sampler on the digital crown would be insufficient to make this a practical effort. The ?Watch would be better off reading retinas for that level of security.
I would imagine that the crown is too small to get a meaningful fingerprint sample. when you only look at a tiny area of the finger, they look pretty similar. The iPhone/iPad buttons allow a significant portion of the center of the finger (the most unique part) to be sampled. The crown would sample only a fraction of that area.
I initially agreed with this, but now I'm rethinking it when I saw this picture:
The amount of the finger accessed by the button is about as much as I routinely press my touch ID with. Maybe slightly less, but considering Touch ID already takes multiple samples, I'd say there's enough in that slight contact, based on my experience with my iPhone to do the job. In fact it will probably ore accurate than the placement on my touch ID at present.