Apple to launch cellular connected Apple Watch later this year, report says

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    foggyhill said:
    While I think that the "runners" (and others like them) are one group that would benefit from this device, I can't imagine the device was developed with only them in mind, I just don't think they're a big enough market. In fact, I think it's much bigger than that. I think it's the future coming here now.

    As some in this thread have already mentioned, it could easily be a replacement iPod (which they just killed off recently), that's true. But now think about it with phone functionality (which would render the iPhone a different type of device for those users). Imagine you had Ear Pods (or something similar) and an LTE AW, you could make phone calls without an iPhone, meaning the whole way we think of phones and making phone calls will change (again). Will the device in your pocket still be considered a phone if you make calls with your wearable device (which you most likely would have on your person more often than the iPhone in your pocket or purse)?

    It's quite exciting to imagine how use cases of devices will change with tech advances like this. Still a long way to go till it'll be a seamless replacement of different functions, but it's got to start somewhere at some point, and I think we already did that when the whole wearables fad began a few years ago. This is just the next step in the evolution of our devices.
    Most people don't "make phone calls" at all these days, if your under 30, your doing much of your communicating in text form. So, how does that fit into that... Dictation of your texts :-), or just sending short voice messages like in push to talk walkie talkies...
    Is there something about this that limits its usage to under 30s? Perhaps you think that's what Apple would or should do?

    It's a strange world you view, not seeing significant numbers of people who make phone calls. Not saying it's untrue, just that I walk down the street (large city found in my username) and though there are lots of people texting, I see just as many if not more people on the phone making calls. Given the various phone plans on offer by all the telcos, I'd say actual *calls* feature prominently in quite a few of them. But, perhaps that's not what you mean?

    Perhaps you're just being a wet blanket or a luddite and refusing to imagine how things actually might be in the future? :tongue: Everyone knows all you need is to have seen one Star Trek to know that calls still occur in the future, and in TNG their wearables are their badges - what more proof do you need?
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 22 of 34
    I'm not too excited about having a mini microwave oven strapped to my wrist unless, perhaps, the bottom case will be RF-shielded.  And what's the point?  I get the Lo-jack functionality; cool, but the wifi connectivity works really well like Jbdragon noted. Plus we're getting a new form factor so if it's any thinner, smaller, more powerful, etc...I would think there would be an embedded battery in the strap or some sort of kinetic charging (or Apple magic). Regardless, will be exciting to see what they do with it. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 34
    What is the point of LTE on a smartwatch except for people who want to run without a phone?
    Considering it's a fitness device more than anything else, that's reason probably enough.
  • Reply 24 of 34
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,368member
    What is the point of LTE on a smartwatch except for people who want to run without a phone?
    It would be great to go phone free streamline to iMac ipad watch full time. No pocket smart slab at all if Apple aren’t ever going to make smartslab smaller than 5se..
  • Reply 25 of 34
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,080member
    I'm in!
  • Reply 26 of 34
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    foggyhill said:
    While I think that the "runners" (and others like them) are one group that would benefit from this device, I can't imagine the device was developed with only them in mind, I just don't think they're a big enough market. In fact, I think it's much bigger than that. I think it's the future coming here now.

    As some in this thread have already mentioned, it could easily be a replacement iPod (which they just killed off recently), that's true. But now think about it with phone functionality (which would render the iPhone a different type of device for those users). Imagine you had Ear Pods (or something similar) and an LTE AW, you could make phone calls without an iPhone, meaning the whole way we think of phones and making phone calls will change (again). Will the device in your pocket still be considered a phone if you make calls with your wearable device (which you most likely would have on your person more often than the iPhone in your pocket or purse)?

    It's quite exciting to imagine how use cases of devices will change with tech advances like this. Still a long way to go till it'll be a seamless replacement of different functions, but it's got to start somewhere at some point, and I think we already did that when the whole wearables fad began a few years ago. This is just the next step in the evolution of our devices.
    Most people don't "make phone calls" at all these days, if your under 30, your doing much of your communicating in text form. So, how does that fit into that... Dictation of your texts :-), or just sending short voice messages like in push to talk walkie talkies...
    Is there something about this that limits its usage to under 30s? Perhaps you think that's what Apple would or should do?

    It's a strange world you view, not seeing significant numbers of people who make phone calls. Not saying it's untrue, just that I walk down the street (large city found in my username) and though there are lots of people texting, I see just as many if not more people on the phone making calls. Given the various phone plans on offer by all the telcos, I'd say actual *calls* feature prominently in quite a few of them. But, perhaps that's not what you mean?

    Perhaps you're just being a wet blanket or a luddite and refusing to imagine how things actually might be in the future? :tongue: Everyone knows all you need is to have seen one Star Trek to know that calls still occur in the future, and in TNG their wearables are their badges - what more proof do you need?
    For every person you see with a phone on their ears, you get 50 with a phone in their hands....
    Come on, you really know what those people are doing.
    If you see them moving them their little fingers furiously, they could be playing a game, but its more likely they're texting, or having a live chat.
    Just in the public transport, I'm going to bet you the talk to text ratio is probably 30 to 1

    Why we got that way, because unlike a phone conversation, you can text a person all day long.
     Imagine doing that with just a few people and you'll see how that can mount fast..

    These days, it's the data in the plan that's the most important. Just about all plans but the lowest are unlimited in calling as a matter of fact.
     Why? Because for plans, the call part is not a major the selling point.
    It's a data world and its data that the crucial part of people's cell plan.

  • Reply 27 of 34
    foggyhill said:
    foggyhill said:
    While I think that the "runners" (and others like them) are one group that would benefit from this device, I can't imagine the device was developed with only them in mind, I just don't think they're a big enough market. In fact, I think it's much bigger than that. I think it's the future coming here now.

    As some in this thread have already mentioned, it could easily be a replacement iPod (which they just killed off recently), that's true. But now think about it with phone functionality (which would render the iPhone a different type of device for those users). Imagine you had Ear Pods (or something similar) and an LTE AW, you could make phone calls without an iPhone, meaning the whole way we think of phones and making phone calls will change (again). Will the device in your pocket still be considered a phone if you make calls with your wearable device (which you most likely would have on your person more often than the iPhone in your pocket or purse)?

    It's quite exciting to imagine how use cases of devices will change with tech advances like this. Still a long way to go till it'll be a seamless replacement of different functions, but it's got to start somewhere at some point, and I think we already did that when the whole wearables fad began a few years ago. This is just the next step in the evolution of our devices.
    Most people don't "make phone calls" at all these days, if your under 30, your doing much of your communicating in text form. So, how does that fit into that... Dictation of your texts :-), or just sending short voice messages like in push to talk walkie talkies...
    Is there something about this that limits its usage to under 30s? Perhaps you think that's what Apple would or should do?

    It's a strange world you view, not seeing significant numbers of people who make phone calls. Not saying it's untrue, just that I walk down the street (large city found in my username) and though there are lots of people texting, I see just as many if not more people on the phone making calls. Given the various phone plans on offer by all the telcos, I'd say actual *calls* feature prominently in quite a few of them. But, perhaps that's not what you mean?

    Perhaps you're just being a wet blanket or a luddite and refusing to imagine how things actually might be in the future? :tongue: Everyone knows all you need is to have seen one Star Trek to know that calls still occur in the future, and in TNG their wearables are their badges - what more proof do you need?
    For every person you see with a phone on their ears, you get 50 with a phone in their hands....
    Come on, you really know what those people are doing.
    If you see them moving them their little fingers furiously, they could be playing a game, but its more likely they're texting, or having a live chat.
    Just in the public transport, I'm going to bet you the talk to text ratio is probably 30 to 1

    Why we got that way, because unlike a phone conversation, you can text a person all day long.
     Imagine doing that with just a few people and you'll see how that can mount fast..

    These days, it's the data in the plan that's the most important. Just about all plans but the lowest are unlimited in calling as a matter of fact.
     Why? Because for plans, the call part is not a major the selling point.
    It's a data world and its data that the crucial part of people's cell plan.

    You are just really into arguing this (what I consider a moot) point, aren't you? I'm saying that the way we used these devices has and is changing and putting call functionality on the wrist will enable more changes to the devices and how we use them. Will all of them continue to be considered phones when the device sits in your pocket, or will they start to be considered mini tablets (and perhaps sizes vary even more) when phone calls aren't made from them? What other changes might we see? It's interesting to think about.

    People will make calls if the watch has phone capabilities, that was foreseen when the whole wearable (especially with BT headphones) movement started. It was so obvious that we could shift some functionality to wearables, we're just now starting to see how that will begin to play out. Argue all you want that people don't make phone calls, just seems a silly argument to be making and affects nothing whatsoever about what I was saying.
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 28 of 34
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 887member
    What's funny to me is I have heard statements like who is really going to care? I say, and I know this is a guesstimate, but there will be 1 million (american) joggers/runners who will rejoice and praise hallelujah and 9 million who are going meh... But it's cool! And if 1 million people are happier, thats dope, it's probably even just like the same number of iPads in use that are WiFi only versus iPads with LTE... go figure...
  • Reply 29 of 34
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    jonagold said:
    I'm not too excited about having a mini microwave oven strapped to my wrist...
    No doubt! Though I suppose it's no worse than most people carrying their phones in their pockets all day. But, I often put mine in airplane mode or use *wired* ear-buds and lay the phone on the desk/table when cell or wifi is on. What concerns me most, though, is moving to AirPods and stuff like that where it's long-time, right in the ear. I suppose that's still better than holding the phone against ones head for long periods of time (by a big margin).

    I just hope research and medical/biological understanding catch up with this trend before the impact is too great. :(

    foggyhill said:
    Just in the public transport, I'm going to bet you the talk to text ratio is probably 30 to 1
    ...
    Why we got that way, because unlike a phone conversation, you can text a person all day long.
    While I somewhat agree with your point, I don't think the ratio is that high. Maybe in some certain spots or demographics, but not in general. A lot of people still make phone calls... probably even those same people with their little fingers furiously moving, just at other times.

    But, if the Watch could only text, the problem remains that there isn't a keyboard. So, they'd have to be doing voice to text and trying to edit on a tiny screen, etc. It's not going to be like a phone replacement. And sending lots of voice sample to turn into text is going to eat battery.

    Certainly, there are advantages to both texting and voice. Neither are going away. For example, people still use YouTube, even though listening to a podcast is *WAY* more efficient, as you can do other things while listening.
  • Reply 30 of 34
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,373member
     If Apple wants it's Watch to become a significantly greater success than it is now, it must do more than just cut the cord between the Watch and the iPhone. But that doesn't mean making it even more expensive than it already is. Indeed, Apple needs to reduce the base cost of the watch further and certainly not add additional monthly fees to the mix!   Even if those monthly fees were 1/5 the cost of an iPhone's monthly fees, it's still too high.   And as others have correctly pointed out, any kind of cellular connection would worsen the already short battery life of the Watch. 

    My 14-year-old daughter received an Apple Watch as a Christmas present from a generous relative this past Christmas. She doesn't have an iPhone and I'm certainly not going to buy her one at her age. Even if the Watch had a cellular plan, I wouldn't pay the monthly fees for it. As such, the Apple Watch is pretty much  a fancy toy that does very little.  I'm not at all impressed and neither is she.

    We need a lower-cost version of the Apple Watch that doesn't rely on the iPhone or on a cellular connection to work, all at a lower cost than Apple charges now for a baseline Apple Watch. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 34
    jdw said:
     If Apple wants it's Watch to become a significantly greater success than it is now, it must do more than just cut the cord between the Watch and the iPhone. But that doesn't mean making it even more expensive than it already is. Indeed, Apple needs to reduce the base cost of the watch further and certainly not add additional monthly fees to the mix!   Even if those monthly fees were 1/5 the cost of an iPhone's monthly fees, it's still too high.   And as others have correctly pointed out, any kind of cellular connection would worsen the already short battery life of the Watch. 

    My 14-year-old daughter received an Apple Watch as a Christmas present from a generous relative this past Christmas. She doesn't have an iPhone and I'm certainly not going to buy her one at her age. Even if the Watch had a cellular plan, I wouldn't pay the monthly fees for it. As such, the Apple Watch is pretty much  a fancy toy that does very little.  I'm not at all impressed and neither is she.

    We need a lower-cost version of the Apple Watch that doesn't rely on the iPhone or on a cellular connection to work, all at a lower cost than Apple charges now for a baseline Apple Watch. 
    Pricing strategy is a complex discipline which reaches into and directly affects things like product & brand strategy. Companies can actually make more money selling fewer products at higher prices (with the right feature sets), and that works well for Apple since it is a premium brand. Apple's prices are higher than commodity products, all of them, and its profits are higher than pretty much every other company on earth. Lowering prices isn't the answer to anything except "how can we make Apple less valuable as a company?" - once you start cutting prices, you compete differently, your positioning is different and that will have repercussions on all the products in the company, especially when you have to start considering costs in our lovely capitalist world. More products sold at lower prices isn't the 1+1=2 equation many assume it to be.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    AI_liasAI_lias Posts: 435member
    jdw said:
     If Apple wants it's Watch to become a significantly greater success than it is now, it must do more than just cut the cord between the Watch and the iPhone. But that doesn't mean making it even more expensive than it already is. Indeed, Apple needs to reduce the base cost of the watch further and certainly not add additional monthly fees to the mix!   Even if those monthly fees were 1/5 the cost of an iPhone's monthly fees, it's still too high.   And as others have correctly pointed out, any kind of cellular connection would worsen the already short battery life of the Watch. 

    My 14-year-old daughter received an Apple Watch as a Christmas present from a generous relative this past Christmas. She doesn't have an iPhone and I'm certainly not going to buy her one at her age. Even if the Watch had a cellular plan, I wouldn't pay the monthly fees for it. As such, the Apple Watch is pretty much  a fancy toy that does very little.  I'm not at all impressed and neither is she.

    We need a lower-cost version of the Apple Watch that doesn't rely on the iPhone or on a cellular connection to work, all at a lower cost than Apple charges now for a baseline Apple Watch. 
    I agree with you, and this might not be a good idea, but one reason I would need cell service on my watch, for example, when I go for a run and need to call 911. if that ability is there, free of charge, that's enough for me. As far as adding this cellular feature without shortening the battery life, also agree: the phone's brightness was already increased, instead of lengthening the battery life. For me, multiple day battery life is most important (especially for sleep tracking so you don't have to recharge every night, and next is ability to call 911 and report location in emergencies, where you can leave the phone behind when going for a run)
  • Reply 33 of 34
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,373member

    Lowering prices isn't the answer to anything except "how can we make Apple less valuable as a company?"
    Your entire argument is against lowering the base price of the Apple Watch, but in my earlier post you see that I also spoke against a price "increase" which will take place if LTE became a requirement. 

    And as to the other argument made about dialing emergency numbers, I myself don't feel that $14 per month — probably what the Apple Watch LTE cost would be — is worth the ability to dial 911 from a watch. 

    Even if Apple Watch pricing remains unchanged, I would like the ability to be able to use it without an iPhone and without a monthly fee tied to LTE. 
    edited August 2017 Soli
  • Reply 34 of 34
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    AI_lias said:
    ... when I go for a run and need to call 911. if that ability is there, free of charge, that's enough for me.
    I agree, but don't get your hopes up. I don't think there will be any calling on it, as it would eat too much battery to be able to depend on (which defeats the purpose). I'd imagine more of a 'panic button' type situation that would, via data, send some kind of alert with location every so often for as long as it can, etc.

    Someone should do some calculations... but I'd be curious how long the battery power of an Apple Watch could even sustain a cell connection. My gut says not long... as in low digit (maybe even single digit) minutes. However, if you're just sending/receiving a burst of LTE  data every so often (anyone know minimum time to establish the connection, send a burst?), that makes some kinds of communications far more possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.