Seems like the cellular radio could be off usually .. and only away from phone would you need to turn it on (going for run without phone). You know you'll chew through your watch battery faster when using cellular, so act accordingly and be ready to charge more often. /soup until the battery tech and cellular efficiency gets better.
Was really hoping for more medical metrics (O2 levels, blood pressure, etc.)
O2 is potentially possible with the current gen, but there may be accuracy issues with the hardware, limited dataset or regulatory issues with the FDA. If it's a hardware problem then R2 could address that, but it seems more likely to be a data issue. (Similar devices have limited capability until a sufficiently large dataset is established - current gen users may have all been helping to provide this necessary data.)
I don't believe Apple will take this route. It makes sense to add cellular on iPad, but not on the watch. As many mentioned before, battery life and more bio sensors should be prioritized. If the tech is not ready and/or if it will be compromising battery/speed, cellular must wait. Saying that, improvement over BT tech is very welcome. As well as improvement over battery efficiency when using GPS.
All that little battery needs is a LTE radio to suck it dry. I read a review of the LG Urbane 2 LTE that's on the way. Big and clunky, huge actually. Probably because of the size of the battery needed to power the thing. No GPS either because of battery issues. Apple wouldn't put out something like that just to be first.
why would you need a cell radio on a Watch? just silly.
So that it can download data without the phone like a map or notifications when out running or let you call a taxi. Carriers can offer combined data contracts with the phone contract so no separate data plan or just a small surcharge. When someone is out in the garden, possibly out of wifi range, they don't need to carry their phone around and don't need to go back inside to answer calls. When doing things like swimming, the phone is going to be out of range but the Watch would still be fully functional with a cellular connection. People can turn the cellular off if they don't use it so it doesn't impact battery life but it would benefit some people.
If your a place you've already connected with your Iphone on WIFI, you should already get this info direct through WIFI.
The first iPhone didn't have GPS for likely similar reasons. (Feature limit and battery concerns.)
While there are many commenters on here who seem to absolutely deny the usefulness of GPS/Cellular to a watch - I can think of many useful cases off the top of my head: Cellular: (based on the assumption that the phone is not always in range. e.g. running, wet activities, gym floor, or more simply just on its charger while you're somewhere else in the home/office.)
Ability to stream music from various music accounts such as apple music and spotify (additionally without relying on limited onboard storage, and slow transfer speeds.)
Siri, home automation, 3rd party apps that require 'net access would all immediately benefit. (E.g. Weather alerts, "hey siri" working in most conditions, receiving your messages anywhere, parcel tracking and so on.)
AI relies on cloud interfacing, the watch is an ideal candidate for AI personal assistance of every kind - this benefits from being truly independent of the phone. (Also it's faster without having to hop through the handset.)
Nearly every data-required application is enhanced if not reliant on the phone, similarly if all apps are now required to be phone-independent then it carries that data is available independent of the phone as well. (This also applies to GPS.)
Calling is trickier - while call quality and connection performance would increase, the mobile network will need to support dual devices for a single number, this might be why cellular isn't included at this stage, it requires a bit more work/intelligence to support. However the short term solution is very simple: merely extend how the phone forwards calls to the watch over the WAN rather that just the local network. (This requires that the phone is on however, and would function a bit like facetime audio.)
GPS:
Health activities (of course) - these are enhanced with location information and more efficient tracking of runs/paddles/etc - as many don't like arm straps for phones as they impede movement and after a few kilometres you actually begin to notice the weight difference (not to mention the absurd tan line.)
Maps while riding, walking, etc (again, it's not always ideal to bring a phone, especially as they're bigger than they used to be.) It's trivial for the watch to hold a cache of the route or even a decently large mapped local area. (I.E. it's not all that reliant on constant data access.)
Accurate location is key to providing good outdoor services (including AI) - e.g calling an uber directly from the watch rather than it just being a remote control for the iOS app.
Allows 3rd party apps to provide better location without taxing the watch/phone connection or phone's battery life.
As mentioned in Cellular, apps are now required to be independent, it's ideal if API calls did not require the phone but could be locally completed - this speeds up everything and aids the independence of the watch (which seems an obvious direction.)
Also with Cellular features it provides a compelling emergency feature, e.g. the new emergency call button.
LTE CAT-0 would be prefect for all these things and there are tiny low power chips coming to suit this. Still a quick Google tells me there is only one production ready and it was only released this month. So unless Apple's partners have something under wraps for an Apple deal then I just can't see it happening this year.
Then again maybe that is why they are holding up MacBookPro updates. Small low power low bandwidth LTE chipset that can swap it's eSIM ID with your phone to bond itself with your iPhone account would be killer in both a laptop and a watch. Why not wait and roll out the all the devices this system would be useful for at once.
Even if there may be no apparent breakthrough application or cellular on the watch at this point in time, I appreciate the research in this direction. I feel this is a bit like Formula One, where you experiment and test on the limits of feasibility, and then some inventions make it to the mass market. What I mean by this, whatever Apple learns from this has a high likelihood to be transferred onto the iPhone and iPad. A breakthrough in energy saving cellular would certainly be appreciated there. And even if for the time being it allows you to use the features of the watch that requires cellular on the occasions you don't carry your phone - I say why not? overall, I like that Apple appears to challenge themselves to push the envelope. Only in this way you get to the rare cases of breakthrough projects where the end customer sees a substantial benefit.
The cellular connection is coming eventually and I'm in no rush for it. Considering how young the smartwatch market is, there's no need to push out a half-baked device just because some people want cellular "RIGHT NOW!" I like that they're adding GPS and (I believe) a barometer and that the focus is fitness. I think working on the health and fitness angle and increasing the biometric sensors/data is the prudent route to go, whereas the cellular will be added when it won't totally kill the battery.
why would you need a cell radio on a Watch? just silly.
I wonder if Apple can make special bands that have GPS and an extra battery? Most of us don't give a crap about GPS. But I know runners do
because you know that it can take up to 15 to 20 minutes for the GPS chip to get sync to the satellites. Today phones use the cellular and known wifi networks to get a location until the GPS is online. Plus GPS when searching for the signal uses lots of power, That is why it make sense to have cellular and GPS together.
A couple minutes ago, I put my Nokia in flight mode and powered it off and went outside to the edge of my property where there is no wifi signal, just to be sure. I turned it back on and it was still in flight mode. I turned on the GPS and it took about 30 seconds to get a lock, which of course was without either a wifi or network connection, and that is with overcast conditions.
because you know that it can take up to 15 to 20 minutes for the GPS chip to get sync to the satellites. Today phones use the cellular and known wifi networks to get a location until the GPS is online. Plus GPS when searching for the signal uses lots of power, That is why it make sense to have cellular and GPS together.
A couple minutes ago, I put my Nokia in flight mode and powered it off and went outside to the edge of my property where there is no wifi signal, just to be sure. I turned it back on and it was still in flight mode. I turned on the GPS and it took about 30 seconds to get a lock, which of course was without either a wifi or network connection, and that is with overcast conditions.
I would see about after you wait a significant amount of time and travel a significant distance. Perhaps do this right before a flight or a car ride, and then also have the device OFF the entire duration of the trip; then see how long it takes to connect. The reason is your device was already pre-connected to GPS, and GPS is the one thing that still may stay active even with Airplane Mode enabled.
A couple minutes ago, I put my Nokia in flight mode and powered it off and went outside to the edge of my property where there is no wifi signal, just to be sure. I turned it back on and it was still in flight mode. I turned on the GPS and it took about 30 seconds to get a lock, which of course was without either a wifi or network connection, and that is with overcast conditions.
I would see about after you wait a significant amount of time and travel a significant distance. Perhaps do this right before a flight or a car ride, and then also have the device OFF the entire duration of the trip; then see how long it takes to connect. The reason is your device was already pre-connected to GPS, and GPS is the one thing that still may stay active even when Airplane Mode.
I am pretty sure the GPS is not always on, that may be a US thing. The difference in battery life between GPS on and off is very noticeable. It may be the last GPS location was stored which hastened the acquisition.
A while ago I flew to Australia. I was on an A380 with a window seat. Several thousand Km from the last time the phone had been on or had the GPS turned on, Just for a laugh, I thought I would see if I could get a GPS lock, holding it next to the window. Do I need to mention I had neither a wifi or network connection? I honestly did not think it would have a hope in getting a lock as the difficulty and time necessary to get a GPS lock increases dramatically if you are moving and even more if you are moving rapidly. I also thought it wouldn't have a hope because of the very narrow angle of EM view out the window and the body of the plane shielding GPS signals from the majority of possible satellites.
It took about 4 - 5 minutes but I was absolutely astonished when it actually managed to get a lock and was able to show the position and speed with decent accuracy. I will try putting it in flight mode and moving to another physical location and timing it to lock at some point.
I would see about after you wait a significant amount of time and travel a significant distance. Perhaps do this right before a flight or a car ride, and then also have the device OFF the entire duration of the trip; then see how long it takes to connect. The reason is your device was already pre-connected to GPS, and GPS is the one thing that still may stay active even when Airplane Mode.
It took about 4 - 5 minutes but I was absolutely astonished when it actually managed to get a lock and was able to show the position and speed with decent accuracy. I will try putting it in flight mode and moving to another physical location and timing it to lock at some point.
1) 4–5 minutes sounds about right.
2) I'd also turn it off to see how that affects the time. Look for the longest possible time scenario. For your trip back home then keep it only in Airplane Mode and see if it still takes only 30 seconds to connect with 4 satellites.
It took about 4 - 5 minutes but I was absolutely astonished when it actually managed to get a lock and was able to show the position and speed with decent accuracy. I will try putting it in flight mode and moving to another physical location and timing it to lock at some point.
1) 4–5 minutes sounds about right.
2) I'd also turn it off to see how that affects the time. Look for the longest possible time scenario. For your trip back home then keep it only in Airplane Mode and see if it still takes only 30 seconds to connect with 4 satellites.
2) I'd also turn it off to see how that affects the time. Look for the longest possible time scenario. For your trip back home then keep it only in Airplane Mode and see if it still takes only 30 seconds to connect with 4 satellites.
I was initially responding to a claim the time to lock without wifi or mobile signal would be 15-20min.
But your comment is flawed since it had already been locked using A-GPS before you disabled the cellular and WiFi radios. The claim isn't that once you use Airplane Mode that it will forget about the satellites it's now tracking.
A watch with a cellular radio would provide a compelling reason to purchase the watch. For much of the consumer market, the health functions are not compelling reasons. There is a market, but it is relatively small. Fitbit and the Apple Watch at this point do not take away from smartphone sales. With the inclusion of a cellular radio, the wearable devices would.
If I could purchase a watch that allows phone calls and receives data allowing me to tether an iPad, I would have no use for a separate dedicated phone at all.
Hence, I have not purchased the watch. I have a solar atomic model on my wrist that I am quite fond of. Never needs dedicated charging and I can quickly glance at the time anytime I want. An Apple Watch would be nice, but I just don't consider the cost justified for a product with a limited feature set for the specific item I desire. If I have to carry a phone with me anyway, then that's what I'll use primarily.
There have been some major breakthroughs in lithium air technology. Such a development would allow placing a dedicated LTE modem in the watch and maintain decent battery life.
It it will be coming. Until then, I can wait as can much of the market. Once it comes, however, the iPhone will go the way of the iPod and the watch becomes the next big thing.
Compelling is the key word. As previously noted, that product not only didn't sell well, but they stopped making the product line. The G2 you're showing is simply a newer release of an entirely new product line that is still uncompelling.
Nowhere was it mentioned that the evolution of technology would forever prevent cellular chips from being a compelling feature in a wrist-worn device. At some point, that will very likely happen, but today is not that day. There are just too many downsized and not enough upsides for anything other than a very niche segment of an already low-volume market, but you'd have to get your head out of your ass to notice.
So you're saying Samsung has given up putting cellular technology into their watches?
Well here's a slightly less troll-ish photo which of course proves you wrong:
Compelling is the key word. As previously noted, that product not only didn't sell well, but they stopped making the product line. The G2 you're showing is simply a newer release of an entirely new product line that is still uncompelling.
Nowhere was it mentioned that the evolution of technology would forever prevent cellular chips from being a compelling feature in a wrist-worn device. At some point, that will very likely happen, but today is not that day. There are just too many downsized and not enough upsides for anything other than a very niche segment of an already low-volume market, but you'd have to get your head out of your ass to notice.
Yet you claim, despite this, and the updated photos I included of the 2016 model in my edited post, that Samsung has not been "pushing that market" since that Samsung model you posted your trolling photo of, which was released in 1999!
So twist it however you want, your intent was clearly to troll, and your claims were patently false.
If you can't see the benefits of incorporating a cellular radio into a watch, then it's not me that needs to get his head out of his "ass", especially since I don't have to troll and post lies to do it.
Neither GPS or cellular in the Watch have any appeal to me. As long as their presence in no way impinges on battery life, I'd be ok with that. But I'd want to see better battery life before those features were added.
Using both of them as an emergency beacon is an interesting idea, especially if it sends out long/lat as well. But the main deterrent for me is an additional data/phone plan. A data plan similar to that offered by att and others for the iPad would be doable. Buy some data for the month, no recurring charges.
As for using it as a phone, probably not. It's been very handy for getting and making calls, then moving to the phone, but not convenient for actually having a conversation. I've done maybe three or four though, knowing that the calls would take less time than it would have to get my phone and take the call. But that's a rarity.
If these two features make others happy and don't hurt battery life, I'm in.
Comments
Then again maybe that is why they are holding up MacBookPro updates.
Small low power low bandwidth LTE chipset that can swap it's eSIM ID with your phone to bond itself with your iPhone account would be killer in both a laptop and a watch.
Why not wait and roll out the all the devices this system would be useful for at once.
overall, I like that Apple appears to challenge themselves to push the envelope. Only in this way you get to the rare cases of breakthrough projects where the end customer sees a substantial benefit.
A while ago I flew to Australia. I was on an A380 with a window seat. Several thousand Km from the last time the phone had been on or had the GPS turned on, Just for a laugh, I thought I would see if I could get a GPS lock, holding it next to the window. Do I need to mention I had neither a wifi or network connection? I honestly did not think it would have a hope in getting a lock as the difficulty and time necessary to get a GPS lock increases dramatically if you are moving and even more if you are moving rapidly. I also thought it wouldn't have a hope because of the very narrow angle of EM view out the window and the body of the plane shielding GPS signals from the majority of possible satellites.
It took about 4 - 5 minutes but I was absolutely astonished when it actually managed to get a lock and was able to show the position and speed with decent accuracy. I will try putting it in flight mode and moving to another physical location and timing it to lock at some point.
2) I'd also turn it off to see how that affects the time. Look for the longest possible time scenario. For your trip back home then keep it only in Airplane Mode and see if it still takes only 30 seconds to connect with 4 satellites.
edit:
If I could purchase a watch that allows phone calls and receives data allowing me to tether an iPad, I would have no use for a separate dedicated phone at all.
Hence, I have not purchased the watch. I have a solar atomic model on my wrist that I am quite fond of. Never needs dedicated charging and I can quickly glance at the time anytime I want. An Apple Watch would be nice, but I just don't consider the cost justified for a product with a limited feature set for the specific item I desire. If I have to carry a phone with me anyway, then that's what I'll use primarily.
There have been some major breakthroughs in lithium air technology. Such a development would allow placing a dedicated LTE modem in the watch and maintain decent battery life.
It it will be coming. Until then, I can wait as can much of the market. Once it comes, however, the iPhone will go the way of the iPod and the watch becomes the next big thing.
Well here's a slightly less troll-ish photo which of course proves you wrong:
http://www.samsung.com/us/explore/gear-s2/
Nowhere was it mentioned that the evolution of technology would forever prevent cellular chips from being a compelling feature in a wrist-worn device. At some point, that will very likely happen, but today is not that day. There are just too many downsized and not enough upsides for anything other than a very niche segment of an already low-volume market, but you'd have to get your head out of your ass to notice.
So twist it however you want, your intent was clearly to troll, and your claims were patently false.
If you can't see the benefits of incorporating a cellular radio into a watch, then it's not me that needs to get his head out of his "ass", especially since I don't have to troll and post lies to do it.
Using both of them as an emergency beacon is an interesting idea, especially if it sends out long/lat as well. But the main deterrent for me is an additional data/phone plan. A data plan similar to that offered by att and others for the iPad would be doable. Buy some data for the month, no recurring charges.
As for using it as a phone, probably not. It's been very handy for getting and making calls, then moving to the phone, but not convenient for actually having a conversation. I've done maybe three or four though, knowing that the calls would take less time than it would have to get my phone and take the call. But that's a rarity.
If these two features make others happy and don't hurt battery life, I'm in.