Next Apple Watch extremely unlikely to get FaceTime video calling

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post





    strangely, DED has failed to remember Apple applying for a patent over 5 years ago that solves this very engineering issue.



    you put the camera behind the screen.



    http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/08/apple_files_patent_for_camera_hidden_behind_display



    I'll just leave this here



    Yeah, I remember that one. I've been waiting for it to come to fruition for a long time! Is it even possible though?

     

    Anyway, Apple may very well implement this with FaceTime functionality a few years down the line or later, but it doesn't mean that it isn't productive to throw some fire on ignorant rumors/FUD (further, I found this article interesting, and I appreciated the comprehensive take).

     

    As soon as a saw the headline for this rumor on 9to5 in my RSS feed I could smell the bullshit, which is why I didn't click. The rumor not only doesn't make sense, but seems conspicuously poised to try and stall sales of current hardware. FWIW, I don't expect hardware to change much in the next generation (except for the addition of new casing materials).

  • Reply 42 of 56
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member

    Try holding your arm such that the watch points to your face, try it for 30 seconds. You may notice a few things:

     


    1. Your arm isn't very steady: this is because the muscles utilised aren't suited for fine motor skills

    2. It's quite difficult/strenuous/straining

    3. 30 seconds is a long time to hold your arm with this articulation

     

    Points 1, 2 & 3 are basically the same problem with the same conclusion: video calling is not well suited to the wrist. The same goes for apps that need a span of time

  • Reply 43 of 56
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

     

    What if the digital crown slid out about 1cm and there was a camera on the side of it, and you push it back in to end the call? Since the camera is hidden inside in normal usage, it doesn't effect the aesthetic and also might address the Glass-like privacy concern.




    The problem with that (assuming that they can build a camera that small) is that the digital crown turns. You pull it out, and then you'd have to twist it around to get the camera (which you can barely see) into the right position before you make the call.

     

    Sounds a little cumbersome.

  • Reply 44 of 56
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    I’m curious why the analysts haven’t figured out how to save time and just write one article, published twice. For example:

     

    Apple’s current considerations call for a video camera to be integrated into the top bezel of the Apple Watch 2, enabling users to make and receive FaceTime calls on the move via their wrists. The company telegraphed its interest in increasing Apple Watch FaceTime functionality during the rollout of watchOS 2.0 at the Worldwide Developers Conference earlier this month. For the first time, the new software allows users to answer FaceTime Audio calls from the Apple Watch, as well as route FaceTime video calls to either be answered on an iPhone or rejected. Of course, plans can change and it is possible that the camera could be pushed back to a later model. 


     

    and

     

    Apple’s current considerations don’t call for a video camera to be integrated into the top bezel of the Apple Watch 2, not enabling users to make and receive FaceTime calls on the move via their wrists. The company didn’t telegraph its interest in increasing Apple Watch FaceTime functionality during the rollout of watchOS 2.0 at the Worldwide Developers Conference earlier this month. For the first time, the new software allows users to answer FaceTime Audio calls from the Apple Watch, as well as route FaceTime video calls to either be answered on an iPhone or rejected. Of course, plans have changed and it the camera has been be pushed back to a later model. 


     

    Just publish them as separate articles (because ad whoring) at the exact same time. People won’t care. It’s not like you (not you, AI; ‘you’, as in “journalists”) do, either.

  • Reply 45 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ECats View Post

     

    Try holding your arm such that the watch points to your face, try it for 30 seconds. You may notice a few things:

     


    1. Your arm isn't very steady: this is because the muscles utilised aren't suited for fine motor skills

    2. It's quite difficult/strenuous/straining

    3. 30 seconds is a long time to hold your arm with this articulation

     

    Points 1, 2 & 3 are basically the same problem with the same conclusion: video calling is not well suited to the wrist. The same goes for apps that need a span of time


     

    Which is the same issue even for a phone, and it is no surprise volume of video phoning is still a fragile and never touted stat.

     

    The in-screen camera I mentioned above and others recalled solves the problem of where your eyes are looking, as in so you can make eye contact.

     

    Still nothing is solving the ergonomics of it, which suck. and arguably anyway any camera needs to be at eye level to look someone in the eye, so it has to be held up stupidly in front of your face.

     

    I think even the speaker and mic on the Apple Watch (or any other wrist device) are nearly equal in stupidity for ergonomics. It was like all the engineers thought "hey let's put the ear and mouth bits as far away as possible from the ear and mouth". As opposed to a watch at least the phone story has a historical precedent. Sadly headsets leave us feeling like either a wanker or a call centre operator. There are other solutions though.

  • Reply 46 of 56
    [SIZE=4]Next Apple Watch extremely unlikely to get FaceTime video calling[/SIZE]

    Dick Tracy will not be amused...
  • Reply 47 of 56
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ChiA View Post



    I'm going to stick my neck out and argue that video calling on the move, for whatever reason, just doesn't have a mass market appeal. Since the advent of 3G we've had devices which are more than capable of providing the video calls sci-fi of the past portrayed, yet even in a metropolis such as London it's rare to see someone making a video call on the move or even in public.



    There's no point going through a lot of effort and design compromise incorporating video calling into the Apple watch when it's something very very few people would use.



    Video Calling was never going to replace Audio Calling. It has been around long enough and is common enough for it to have established its purpose and use case.

    People use Video Calling for loved ones who are far away, either permanently or temporarily. Its for when there is a specific desire to "see" someone...not simply because 'video is always better than just audio'.

  • Reply 48 of 56
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Not every function of every iOS device has to be considered for Apple Watch. The wrist worn notification device has very specific value and uses, and that should be easy to understand to anyone with half a brain.

     

    Go look at the forums of certain bottom of the barrel Apple sites and look at the Apple Watch section. You'll find a plethora of idiots who don't understand what the watch is for, at all. People complaining about the lack of a web browser. On their watch.

    You'll find threads that start with things like, "So I returned my Apple Watch." and the reason inside will be things like, "It doesn't do enough." Or "Requires me to have an iPhone."

     

    I find it amazing that in a world where the iPhone is still relatively a new phenomena, there are people now actually expecting a tiny wrist worn device to REPLACE it, as opposed to complimenting it.

     

    This device has really brought out the stupid in some people. Hopefully they disappear back into the woodwork and don't come out for the next Apple gadget that they don't understand.

  • Reply 49 of 56

    If it could have FaceTime, I would to have camera and then it can take picture also, right ?

  • Reply 50 of 56
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Which is the same issue even for a phone, and it is no surprise volume of video phoning is still a fragile and never touted stat.

    The in-screen camera I mentioned above and others recalled solves the problem of where your eyes are looking, as in so you can make eye contact.

    Still nothing is solving the ergonomics of it, which suck. and arguably anyway any camera needs to be at eye level to look someone in the eye, so it has to be held up stupidly in front of your face.
    It's amazing that the telephone was so popular, considering for over 100 years people had to hold an often heavy receiver up to their ear with their arm. There is absolutely no difference in holding a handset up to ones head and holding a watch up at that level -- indeed the watch weighs much lass than a princess phone handset of days past.

    I'm also wondering if anybody criticisms this particular problem has ever had a FaceTime conversation with an iPad ... I have them all the time with the iPad in my lap or resting on a table, just like one could do with a watch for an extended conversation. You don't have to hold it "stupidly" right in front of your eyes the entire conversation, indeed doing that with the iPad becomes quite fatiguing very quickly. And what's with people holding their iPhones "stupidly" up to their ears in their car in speaker phone mode so they can hear it better? Won't they do the same "stupid" thing with their watch? Or in a noisy cafe?

    Again, this is the worst argument against including a FaceTime camera.

    In general, even if taking selfies or making FaceTime calls is not a feature anybody wants, which I believe is not the case, there's one very important use case for adding a camera -- face recognition. With a camera, one of the biggest complaints among lovers of the watch is the backlight does not stay on long enough. If the watch knows when you're actually looking at it, then it will stay on until you stop. It will also save battery by not turning on with a random arm movement, since no eyes are looking at it, eventually it could become a security feature. So one way or the other, a camera is coming.
  • Reply 51 of 56

    I agree with the author. I have no interest in FaceTime on the Apple Watch. However, I do want the next version to be waterproof, (as in submersion) and able to track my swimming, I also want more health related sensors; not just pulse rate. I think that was one of the goals of the watch concept. Hopefully, technology will improve to make that a reality.

  • Reply 52 of 56
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,040member

    That's good. Talking to your wrist is stupid enough. 

  • Reply 53 of 56
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

     

    That's good. Talking to your wrist is stupid enough. 


    And what is talking to a brick held up to your head?

  • Reply 54 of 56

    deleted - re post below

  • Reply 55 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post



    With a camera, one of the biggest complaints among lovers of the watch is the backlight does not stay on long enough. If the watch knows when you're actually looking at it, then it will stay on until you stop. It will also save battery by not turning on with a random arm movement, since no eyes are looking at it, eventually it could become a security feature. So one way or the other, a camera is coming.

     

    I really appreciated this thought of your's

     

    aside from that..

     

     

    Ergonomics isn't the worst argument. Trying to bring up old phone handsets shows little understanding of body mechanics. Holding your arm out in front as opposed to bent and back is much more straining. Even with a bent arm (which doesn't strain at your shoulder or elbow) any use beyond a brief call and even old phone handsets led to people holding it with their neck, switching hands, leaning on surfaces to rest their elbow, moving to headsets with booms in call centers and reception points. All of these happen with smart phones in voice only mode.

     

    None of those compensation techniques work with something attached to the end of your arm, because even resting your arm on a surface means your face is going to going to present to the receiver at 45deg out of whack and to the side, you have to apply strain your shoulder to bring the wrist point around to face front on and have your arm up or look down into an arm resting flat on a table. Hardly ideal.

     

    In your own example of using an iPad with video calling what did you do? Rest it on the table, sit in the couch with it on your knees or other such scenarios that not only limit where it is comfortable to use as "the next main way of communicating" but also are not suitable for an Apple Watch. After all if you take it off doesn't it lock down.

     

    The worst argument is screen resolution.

     

    The best argument is battery.

  • Reply 56 of 56

    The waterproof could be great upcoming feature if possible, and of course improved battery which could lets me wear it for two or three days at least.

Sign In or Register to comment.