How about longer battery life? That should be top priority for Apple before anything else.
how about you buy one first? even on gym days where i use the green heart rate monitor, i still have 40% left when its time to charge before bed.
A watch that lasts only a day or two on a single charge is crap and you know it. I have one. It's the reason why it can't do sleep tracking. It's probably the reason why Apple can't add more sensors to it (i.e. GPS, barometer, etc.)
Battery life is the biggest thing that's holding back the Apple Watch from doing a lot more. Apple knows it and I hope they figure it out.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to add on another $15-$30/month cellular charge to my family share phone bill to make my watch an independent phone, just yet. It's ok occasionally to make a call to a restaurant to confirm a reservation, or to receive a call from the iPhone in my pocket, but that's about it. Call quality on the Watch is pretty weak, and I don't need another phone number.
I'm sure this full independence is in the cards for a few years down the line, but I don't believe the technology is quite there yet. I have the same technology concern for throwing in GPS functionality, with battery life a significant issue.
I agree. I'm pretty sure Apple is not ready to offer this level of independence based on current technology. No doubt this is where the Watch is headed.
GPS is not the issue people make it out to be, and if there's a shred of evidence to this rumor, it's that and LTE radio is being added to help improve any GPS functionality they may be adding, not to regularly stream data independently of the phone, much less take/make calls -- yet. Too many issues with that and battery life, whereas GPS can can be used as needed, just like the ability to use the watch as a phone now -- perhaps even more power intensive than GPS.
If ultimately the Watch didn't ever need an iPhone, sales would go through the roof.
agree. and agree.
That really is the future of the Watch. Just gotta wait for the technology to catch up.
1. Battery technology - need to be more efficent 2. Chip technology - drain less battery 3. Display technology - projection?
I would love to have an LTE watch that I can wear on days I don't need a big screen. Good enough just to make calls/text and check some other stuff on glances. Sweet.
Sorry for ruining your dreams but such a wristphone would require continuous use of Bluetooth earbuds. What is the percentage of those using their smartphones with Bluetooth headphones? Zero to none... Would that wristphone make you switch to Bluetooth earbuds? Absolutely yes. Would you still be using it at the end of one year? Absolutely not.
The point is, a watch is continuously strapped to your wrist. You don't take it off at a diner's table. But if you don't take off your Bluetooth earbuds during a diner you can be sure of being marked as "tonight's dork" in that restaurant. So, what is the point of strapping a phone to your wrist if you cannot strap its speakers to your head?
Sorry for ruining your dreams but such a wristphone would require continuous use of Bluetooth earbuds. What is the percentage of those using their smartphones with Bluetooth headphones? Zero to none... Would that wristphone make you switch to Bluetooth earbuds? Absolutely yes. Would you still be using it at the end of one year? Absolutely not.
The point is, a watch is continuously strapped to your wrist. You don't take it off at a diner's table. But if you don't take off your Bluetooth earbuds during a diner you can be sure of being marked as "tonight's dork" in that restaurant. So, what is the point of strapping a phone to your wrist if you cannot strap its speakers to your head?
you don't need blutooth earphones to make a call on an Apple watch
Sure you don't... Siri does that but Siri cannot talk on your behalf yet, you must shout in the middle of the diner and bow towards your wrist to hear without earbuds.
Nbr one missing feature: GPS, nbr two missing feature: GPS, nbr three missing feature: GPS, ad infinitum. Also missing 4 or less mm casing, a week or more battery life, color lcd reflecting daylight and display always on. Also, did I mention missing GPS...
Sure you don't... Siri does that but Siri cannot talk on your behalf yet, you must shout in the middle of the diner and bow towards your wrist to hear without earbuds.
Its rude to make a call at the dinner table even with a smartphone. Go into another room if you need to make a call.
sorry but your reasoning does not fly.
And you don't need to bow your head to make a call on the Watch. Just bring the Watch up to your face. Hello.
Of course. You apologize and leave the table to talk without disturbing anyone. So, what is the point in strapping a phone to your wrist if you have to leave the table and switch to "call mode" anyway? You left the table and you still need to plug your earbuds for a comfortable conversation, you cannot walk outside watch to mouth, watch to ear, watch to mouth fashion in noisy environments. Still not more convenient than carrying an iPhone, even with earbuds.
I will be surprised if Apple add cellular capability at this time - I always figured that would be in a gen 3 or 4 Watch (2017 or 2018) - though it is not unthinkable. Becoming more independent from iPhone - really only for data purposes (messages, notifications, app data) - is important to really broaden the use cases and usefulness, but not at the expense of current battery life. Perhaps the tech is maturing faster than thought, and a very small & low power LTE chip with lots of bands supported is possible. Also, in iPad we see that only the cellular versions have GPS, so perhaps Apple figured this was the best route to have a GPS that is able to very quickly determine location.
I don't agree that in gen 2, it is important to have the AW be "completely separate (not paired)" with an iPhone. Really, is there any Android smartphone owner that is going to buy an Apple Watch? But cellular connectivity & GPS to allow independent data at times when outside of BT/WiFi range of iPhone definitely has a lot of value.
Personally, I would value the following hardware improvements above cellular data on the AW, for gen 2 version: - fast charging - improved battery/more power efficient to offer an (optional) always-on low-power watch face mode - increased water resistance - introduction of smart band options - standalone GPS
Of course. You apologize and leave the table to talk without disturbing anyone. So, what is the point in strapping a phone to your wrist if you have to leave the table and switch to "call mode" anyway? You left the table and you still need to plug your earbuds for a comfortable conversation, you cannot walk outside watch to mouth, watch to ear, watch to mouth fashion in noisy environments. Still not more convenient than carrying an iPhone, even with earbuds.
what the hell are you talking about.
Apple can easily increase the power of the mic/speaker to match the iPhone.
Its just as easy to put the watch near your head as it is for a phone. There is no reason to use a blutooth head piece.
I am not so much social yet, I cannot share my always private conversations with people around. What the wristphone is shouting would be heard by everyone.
How about longer battery life? That should be top priority for Apple before anything else.
how about you buy one first? even on gym days where i use the green heart rate monitor, i still have 40% left when its time to charge before bed.
This is absolutely true. It's never been below 20% when I go to charge it. And i use it quite a bit, including the heart rate monitor.
Since the whole system-in-package is an Apple creation, it's possible that they've developed a super secret low-power LTE chip + radio. Cellular data is usually a major drain for devices compared to WIFI / Bluetooth. Would be an intriguing answer to why Qualcomm is hinting that Apple isn't going to use its chips anymore. Maybe we'll see this low-power chip in the iPhone also?
If they do this, I bet the watch will still use the iPhone as a hotspot when it's available. But having the option to go for a run and have full functionality would be a nice addition.
The point is, whether Apple would release a standalone watch with only feature phone capabilities? People would never accept a standalone watch unless it is as powerful as a wrist strapped iPhone. Because the current watch is just like a wrist strapped iPhone, thanks to iPhone it is tethered to, of course. Remove half of that functionality and that wristphone will fail. Such a wristphone is pointless unless it is a full iPhone miniaturized to a watch shape.
People reject a state of the art retina MacBook for not displaying their nose hair at 480 pixel FaceTime, how can we expect they accept a standalone watch with features much less than the current Apple Watch?
If ultimately the Watch didn't ever need an iPhone, sales would go through the roof.
Eventually it will get there. I often think about Dick Tracy's watch when thinking about Apple Watch. Apple Watch should be thought of in the same vain as the Apple 2, it is that young technology wise. We will see it evolve considerably as technology improves.
If ultimately the Watch didn't ever need an iPhone, sales would go through the roof.
Eventually it will get there. I often think about Dick Tracy's watch when thinking about Apple Watch. Apple Watch should be thought of in the same vain as the Apple 2, it is that young technology wise. We will see it evolve considerably as technology improves.
LTE seems like a surprising addition given that it drains battery, but perhaps Apple has been pleasantly pleased by the Watch's real-world battery performance. After all, if it already lasts the entire day for most people with 30-40% left, there isn't really much incentive to try to stretch it to more (as it would still likely need daily recharging). The Wall Street Journal isn't likely to put out such a rumor if they weren't confident in the source.
Anyway, I'm guessing it is still intended primarily as a companion device, but could gain some "independence." Perhaps this is why they are waiting to release the newer model (get the chip technology right and optimize performance and battery life).
It could be designed to tether to the phone and only use Wifi/LTE when the phone is not present. Kind of how it does with Wifi now. I won't deeply speculate until Apple actually ships it. I'm actually happy with the current setup and would really only ask for a faster processor while maintaining similar battery life.
My personal view is the battery life I have no on my AW is fine. YMMV, but more battery life is not some sort of deal breaker for me. I like my AW and feel it is a good value.
I think that an AW with a "burst" capability of cell data would be hugely useful. I bought a first generation Barnes and Noble "Nook" eBook reader. It came with free AT&T cell connection for the sole purpose of connecting to the B&N bookstore. Apple could replicate a similar deal and technology. There are many options to solving that.
Bursts of cell data would be very useful, the most important, I think, is a 911 call service in the US. Or, perhaps some emergency system with a call center or other options. I see a market for wrist mounted lo-jack systems for kids.
I quit wearing my Apple Watch because it was making me neurotic. I have a slightly elevated heart rate and I found myself constantly checking it on the Watch. Since it was always higher than I wanted it to be, I became anxious and worried which only served to elevate the rate even further. Then I would perceive I was suffering from shortness of breath due to excessive heart rate which only compounded the problem further.
Finally I discovered that I could hide in Glances so I feel better now.
The point is, whether Apple would release a standalone watch with only feature phone capabilities? People would never accept a standalone watch unless it is as powerful as a wrist strapped iPhone. Because the current watch is just like a wrist strapped iPhone, thanks to iPhone it is tethered to, of course. Remove half of that functionality and that wristphone will fail. Such a wristphone is pointless unless it is a full iPhone miniaturized to a watch shape.
People reject a state of the art retina MacBook for not displaying their nose hair at 480 pixel FaceTime, how can we expect they accept a standalone watch with features much less than the current Apple Watch?
why are you calling the Watch a feature phone? It can run Apps and will be able run even more powerful apps in the future.
portability wins in the end.
That's why most people have smartphones instead of laptops as their personal computer.
Your problem is you keep thinking about the CURRENT APPLE WATCH. While you should be thinking about the Apple Watch of the future (next 5 years)
Do not tweak what I'm saying, no one has called the Apple Watch a feature phone. Pointless to respond to the rest with your warped understanding...
Do not tweak what I'm saying, no one has called the Apple Watch a feature phone. Pointless to respond to the rest with your warped understanding...
you are the one without understanding.
Have you ever made a phone call on an Apple Watch before?
yet you speak like you are some type of expert on the topic.
Do you know if Apple will upgrade the speaker/mic? yet you speak like it will never improve.
Your Quote: "People would never accept a standalone watch unless it is as powerful as a wrist strapped iPhone."
Pure and utter ignorance. That's like saying 7 years ago that no one would accept a smartphone to replace their laptop if it wasn't as powerful as laptop. BULL CRAP.
Apple Watch is a nice commodity at everyone's reach and of course I own one but I don't need to question anyone's ownership of anything to prove my point, like you do right now. If you cannot withstand opposite views just don't post.
Put a GPS in it and make it waterproof and I'll buy it and give my wife my current one. Otherwise I'm out.
Many People I know regularly swim with it. How much more waterproof do you need.
As for GPS, that's massive battery eater, even Garmin watches twice the size barely last 4-5h using the GPS full time. Unless you're running in the brush, you're not getting a better experience tracking your run with the GPS, so not sure what's the point of it.
That's like saying 7 years ago that no one would accept a smartphone to replace their laptop if it wasn't as powerful as laptop. BULL CRAP.
It it not a matter of no one or everyone. It really depends on what an individual user's needs are. Apple Watch would not replace my iPhone, mainly because I wouldn't want to give up the larger screen, ample storage and the excellent camera. In those cases, the form factor of the watch prevents that sort of functionality. Likewise an iPhone is never going to replace my MBP, again, because of the screen size and also the fact that I need to run full OS X apps for business. Each device has is pros and cons. In my particular case I can make use of all three. I really don't go anywhere without my laptop, except evenings and weekends but I always have my iPhone, the watch, not as much.
Comments
Battery life is the biggest thing that's holding back the Apple Watch from doing a lot more. Apple knows it and I hope they figure it out.
GPS is not the issue people make it out to be, and if there's a shred of evidence to this rumor, it's that and LTE radio is being added to help improve any GPS functionality they may be adding, not to regularly stream data independently of the phone, much less take/make calls -- yet. Too many issues with that and battery life, whereas GPS can can be used as needed, just like the ability to use the watch as a phone now -- perhaps even more power intensive than GPS.
The point is, a watch is continuously strapped to your wrist. You don't take it off at a diner's table. But if you don't take off your Bluetooth earbuds during a diner you can be sure of being marked as "tonight's dork" in that restaurant. So, what is the point of strapping a phone to your wrist if you cannot strap its speakers to your head?
Also missing 4 or less mm casing, a week or more battery life, color lcd reflecting daylight and display always on.
Also, did I mention missing GPS...
I don't agree that in gen 2, it is important to have the AW be "completely separate (not paired)" with an iPhone. Really, is there any Android smartphone owner that is going to buy an Apple Watch? But cellular connectivity & GPS to allow independent data at times when outside of BT/WiFi range of iPhone definitely has a lot of value.
Personally, I would value the following hardware improvements above cellular data on the AW, for gen 2 version:
- fast charging
- improved battery/more power efficient to offer an (optional) always-on low-power watch face mode
- increased water resistance
- introduction of smart band options
- standalone GPS
This is absolutely true. It's never been below 20% when I go to charge it. And i use it quite a bit, including the heart rate monitor.
Since the whole system-in-package is an Apple creation, it's possible that they've developed a super secret low-power LTE chip + radio. Cellular data is usually a major drain for devices compared to WIFI / Bluetooth. Would be an intriguing answer to why Qualcomm is hinting that Apple isn't going to use its chips anymore. Maybe we'll see this low-power chip in the iPhone also?
If they do this, I bet the watch will still use the iPhone as a hotspot when it's available. But having the option to go for a run and have full functionality would be a nice addition.
People reject a state of the art retina MacBook for not displaying their nose hair at 480 pixel FaceTime, how can we expect they accept a standalone watch with features much less than the current Apple Watch?
I think that an AW with a "burst" capability of cell data would be hugely useful. I bought a first generation Barnes and Noble "Nook" eBook reader. It came with free AT&T cell connection for the sole purpose of connecting to the B&N bookstore. Apple could replicate a similar deal and technology. There are many options to solving that.
Bursts of cell data would be very useful, the most important, I think, is a 911 call service in the US. Or, perhaps some emergency system with a call center or other options. I see a market for wrist mounted lo-jack systems for kids.
Finally I discovered that I could hide in Glances so I feel better now.
As for GPS, that's massive battery eater, even Garmin watches twice the size barely last 4-5h using the GPS full time.
Unless you're running in the brush, you're not getting a better experience tracking your run with the GPS, so not sure what's the point of it.