I don't find it remotely plausible. A band that can be replaced by users will not have access to that data port. This rumor is a bust.
Once the port cover is removed, it could simply remain removed, even as the user switched between bands that utilize the data port and bands that don't. The port is watertight, even airtight, so the only risk is dirt and debris getting on the contacts when a band is used that did not completely cover the contacts, which could be easily wiped clean, no different from any other electrical contact. I think the only reason theres a cover on the data port is for esthetic reasons; Apple is the type of company that wold pay attention to such a detail.
I don't think that's a major hurdle. The port exists so water, dust, sweat, oil and anything else can get in there since it's not hermaphroditically sealed and placing something else over it the connects squarely with the pins could probably make the seal tighter. Plus, the real sealant is on the inside of the casing.
If ti's about getting the port cover off, why can't Apple do that for users or offer a tool to pop it off that comes with the smart band?
BT uses it's own power and if the smart band isn't using the watch's charging ring to power itself you end up with what I'd call an unfortunate solution where both the watch and the smar-tband need to be charged independently. You also then have to remove the watch daily when power being shared over the smart band could also include an additional battery as well additional sensors. Of course, that assumes the "diagnostic port" can also be used to share power which I haven't seen confirmed or denied.
The diagnostic port can provide power. Not sure where I read it, but I did see this somewhere in an article about some 3rd party company that was investigating the port for development of their own smart bands.
... I wonder if a smart band could provide GPS? Or does that need to be inside the watch body?
I suppose it could, but there are some significant technical issues.
GPS requires a radio receiver and an antenna. The radio may drain a watch's battery too fast for it to be useful. I don't know what the requirements are for antennae, but it may be hard to fit one into the Watch or make it flexible enough to fit around a band. On an iPhone, the metal case is an active part of the various antennae, but the Watch is much smaller.
Additionally, a GPS receiver that is not assisted by a cellular receiver can take several minutes to lock on to enough satellites for an accurate reading. When GPS is in a phone, the cell tower information helps you get a quick location while the GPS chips do their work (to give you a more precise reading a little later.) If there's no phone available, will the Watch be able to lock-on fast enough for people to not get frustrated?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but these answers are going to be a prerequisite to answering your question.
Once the port cover is removed, it could simply remain removed, even as the user switched between bands that utilize the data port and bands that don't. The port is watertight, even airtight, so the only risk is dirt and debris getting on the contacts when a band is used that did not completely cover the contacts, which could be easily wiped clean, no different from any other electrical contact. I think the only reason theres a cover on the data port is for esthetic reasons; Apple is the type of company that wold pay attention to such a detail.
It's a port for use by Apple employees and that's it. This is more wild speculation based on nothing. Sorry, I don't buy it. Maybe in version 2 or 3.
Of greater interest is the fact that AAPL hit $105.64 today. Down 6.12% based or wholly irrational market fears. Absolutely amazing. A lot of companies got slammed hard today. Buying opportunities for anyone? I'm ready for $95 and I'll buy everything I can afford. (This is not stock advice for anyone else)
I suppose it could, but there are some significant technical issues.
GPS requires a radio receiver and an antenna. The radio may drain a watch's battery too fast for it to be useful. I don't know what the requirements are for antennae, but it may be hard to fit one into the Watch or make it flexible enough to fit around a band. On an iPhone, the metal case is an active part of the various antennae, but the Watch is much smaller.
Additionally, a GPS receiver that is not assisted by a cellular receiver can take several minutes to lock on to enough satellites for an accurate reading. When GPS is in a phone, the cell tower information helps you get a quick location while the GPS chips do their work (to give you a more precise reading a little later.) If there's no phone available, will the Watch be able to lock-on fast enough for people to not get frustrated?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but these answers are going to be a prerequisite to answering your question.
There are some pretty tiny integrated GPS modules, small enough even for a wearable. Look up the NanoSpider as an example.
I have this dream about the iWatch. The band could be where certain sensor are incorporated. So a diabetic would buy the iWatch body/face with the diabetic sensor band. That band might cost a pretty penny and be subsidized by insurance. A fitness junkie or athlete buys the sports band. Someone who merely wants an iWatch for its notifications capabilities and ability to run their iPhone Apps remotely would get the band with no special sensors. And some folks will get multiple bands, sports band for the daytime, dress band for evening, different colors, etc. and perhaps all the bands incorporate the battery, so when you switch bands you get a full charge (presumably your extra bands are stored atop your included inductive charger).
Ha! I was just looking for your post and the thread where we were discussing this even before the launch!
Just a couple of weeks ago I also stated that the Apple Watch may be required by your doctor or insurance company at some point. I didn't necessarily think the sensor bands would come this fast, but I agreed with you then and still believe that the Apple Watch is going to be the "health and monitoring device" more than anything else in the future.
While Apple Pay and notifications are certainly a big part of all of the neat things it can do today, the next revision is going to make it a mandatory device for what ut can do and no phone alone will ever be able to do... until we start having sensors embedded directly. Even then, low freq radios and low-power BT (or even Beacon tech!) will make those sensors smaller and far less invasive if they only need to travel centimeters at most.
There are some pretty tiny integrated GPS modules, small enough even for a wearable. Look up the NanoSpider as an example.
I just did. Looks interesting, but their micro-antenna is 13.4mm square. That's very small, but may not be small enough to comfortably embed in a band, and definitely too small to put in the watch itself (unless the watch case can be used as an antenna.)
I just did. Looks interesting, but their micro-antenna is 13.4mm square. That's very small, but may not be small enough to comfortably embed in a band, and definitely too small to put in the watch itself (unless the watch case can be used as an antenna.)
It's a port for use by Apple employees and that's it. This is more wild speculation based on nothing. Sorry, I don't buy it. Maybe in version 2 or 3.
Of greater interest is the fact that AAPL hit $105.64 today. Down 6.12% based or wholly irrational market fears. Absolutely amazing. A lot of companies got slammed hard today. Buying opportunities for anyone? I'm ready for $95 and I'll buy everything I can afford. (This is not stock advice for anyone else)
What would change in version two or three that would make you believe it?
What would change in version two or three that would make you believe it?
I'd "believe it" if it was either clearly user accessible or if the straps were redesigned to accommodate it facing in either direction. Not the case now.
why do you need that? won't the cashier tell you if it failed?
Just personal preference: I'd prefer a visual indicator that the payment succeeded. There IS a visual indicator on the Watch screen, you just can't see it (immediately) because of the roasted wrist. NFC in the band would fix that.
uhhh, is anyone going to say that Pebble was the first to do this and it is pretty much a copy of the Pebble Time/Time Steel? I must be missing the part of the article that gives credit to Pebble for bringing the "smartstrap" to the market, even though they are still in development. Could you please show me where you give credit to Pebble for this?
Put an NFC antenna in a band so I can use Apple Pay without rotating my wrist (and hiding the screen's confirmation).
Here we have an example of First World problems at their finest.
But then again, so are obesity, diabetes, and whining about Apple's stock prices, and Apple Watch appears to be at the nexus of all three.
So, as an actual Apple Watch owner, I can tell you the watch beeps and does a taptic vibration to confirm. The NFC payment terminal also has LEDs that glow green to confirm. In case you didn't know, that's what it does.
Comments
I don't find it remotely plausible. A band that can be replaced by users will not have access to that data port. This rumor is a bust.
Once the port cover is removed, it could simply remain removed, even as the user switched between bands that utilize the data port and bands that don't. The port is watertight, even airtight, so the only risk is dirt and debris getting on the contacts when a band is used that did not completely cover the contacts, which could be easily wiped clean, no different from any other electrical contact. I think the only reason theres a cover on the data port is for esthetic reasons; Apple is the type of company that wold pay attention to such a detail.
I don't think that's a major hurdle. The port exists so water, dust, sweat, oil and anything else can get in there since it's not hermaphroditically sealed and placing something else over it the connects squarely with the pins could probably make the seal tighter. Plus, the real sealant is on the inside of the casing.
If ti's about getting the port cover off, why can't Apple do that for users or offer a tool to pop it off that comes with the smart band?
BT uses it's own power and if the smart band isn't using the watch's charging ring to power itself you end up with what I'd call an unfortunate solution where both the watch and the smar-tband need to be charged independently. You also then have to remove the watch daily when power being shared over the smart band could also include an additional battery as well additional sensors. Of course, that assumes the "diagnostic port" can also be used to share power which I haven't seen confirmed or denied.
The diagnostic port can provide power. Not sure where I read it, but I did see this somewhere in an article about some 3rd party company that was investigating the port for development of their own smart bands.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000128877615000039/a20150810form8-k.htm
... I wonder if a smart band could provide GPS? Or does that need to be inside the watch body?
I suppose it could, but there are some significant technical issues.
GPS requires a radio receiver and an antenna. The radio may drain a watch's battery too fast for it to be useful. I don't know what the requirements are for antennae, but it may be hard to fit one into the Watch or make it flexible enough to fit around a band. On an iPhone, the metal case is an active part of the various antennae, but the Watch is much smaller.
Additionally, a GPS receiver that is not assisted by a cellular receiver can take several minutes to lock on to enough satellites for an accurate reading. When GPS is in a phone, the cell tower information helps you get a quick location while the GPS chips do their work (to give you a more precise reading a little later.) If there's no phone available, will the Watch be able to lock-on fast enough for people to not get frustrated?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but these answers are going to be a prerequisite to answering your question.
Once the port cover is removed, it could simply remain removed, even as the user switched between bands that utilize the data port and bands that don't. The port is watertight, even airtight, so the only risk is dirt and debris getting on the contacts when a band is used that did not completely cover the contacts, which could be easily wiped clean, no different from any other electrical contact. I think the only reason theres a cover on the data port is for esthetic reasons; Apple is the type of company that wold pay attention to such a detail.
It's a port for use by Apple employees and that's it. This is more wild speculation based on nothing. Sorry, I don't buy it. Maybe in version 2 or 3.
Of greater interest is the fact that AAPL hit $105.64 today. Down 6.12% based or wholly irrational market fears. Absolutely amazing. A lot of companies got slammed hard today. Buying opportunities for anyone? I'm ready for $95 and I'll buy everything I can afford. (This is not stock advice for anyone else)
Ha! I was just looking for your post and the thread where we were discussing this even before the launch!
Just a couple of weeks ago I also stated that the Apple Watch may be required by your doctor or insurance company at some point. I didn't necessarily think the sensor bands would come this fast, but I agreed with you then and still believe that the Apple Watch is going to be the "health and monitoring device" more than anything else in the future.
While Apple Pay and notifications are certainly a big part of all of the neat things it can do today, the next revision is going to make it a mandatory device for what ut can do and no phone alone will ever be able to do... until we start having sensors embedded directly. Even then, low freq radios and low-power BT (or even Beacon tech!) will make those sensors smaller and far less invasive if they only need to travel centimeters at most.
There are some pretty tiny integrated GPS modules, small enough even for a wearable. Look up the NanoSpider as an example.
I just did. Looks interesting, but their micro-antenna is 13.4mm square. That's very small, but may not be small enough to comfortably embed in a band, and definitely too small to put in the watch itself (unless the watch case can be used as an antenna.)
http://www.origingps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Nano-Spider-ORG4400-Datasheet-1.1.pdf
EDIT: Sorry, just noticed you were referring to the size of the antenna module
Yeah that port sort of gave that away from it's reveal. Interested to see what is actually done with it, "smartbands" could be interesting.
What would change in version two or three that would make you believe it?
What would change in version two or three that would make you believe it?
I'd "believe it" if it was either clearly user accessible or if the straps were redesigned to accommodate it facing in either direction. Not the case now.
Hublot have already ruled out licensing their 'magic' gold.
why do you need that? won't the cashier tell you if it failed?
I bet we could invent some other reasons to shit on the product. let's get our thinking caps on!
because 'troll'. no other reason needed.
Just personal preference: I'd prefer a visual indicator that the payment succeeded. There IS a visual indicator on the Watch screen, you just can't see it (immediately) because of the roasted wrist. NFC in the band would fix that.
Not a big deal... just a wish-list item for me.
uhhh, is anyone going to say that Pebble was the first to do this and it is pretty much a copy of the Pebble Time/Time Steel? I must be missing the part of the article that gives credit to Pebble for bringing the "smartstrap" to the market, even though they are still in development. Could you please show me where you give credit to Pebble for this?
Put an NFC antenna in a band so I can use Apple Pay without rotating my wrist (and hiding the screen's confirmation).
Here we have an example of First World problems at their finest.
But then again, so are obesity, diabetes, and whining about Apple's stock prices, and Apple Watch appears to be at the nexus of all three.
So, as an actual Apple Watch owner, I can tell you the watch beeps and does a taptic vibration to confirm. The NFC payment terminal also has LEDs that glow green to confirm. In case you didn't know, that's what it does.