Apple Watch with LTE may not support cellular voice calls at launch, instead focus on data...

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited August 2017
In a push to improve the user experience of the Apple Watch, a new LTE-connected model expected to arrive later this year will reportedly focus on delivering data to users faster, meaning FaceTime and apps may serve as a stand-in for cell phone calls.




Well-connected KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo issued a note to investors on Wednesday, a copy of which was obtained by AppleInsider, in which he predicted that the Apple Watch with LTE won't support traditional cellular voice calls this year.

His claims would suggest that Apple could -- and likely will -- add support for calls in a future software update. In the interim, he believes FaceTime and third-party apps such as Skype could serve as stand-ins.

"Technologically, while it's feasible for LTE Apple Watch to support voice service & replace iPhones' phone function," Kuo wrote, "we think it must first improve the user experience of data transmission (not via iPhone)."







In his view, the lack of call support will make negotiations with carriers simpler. The move will also allow Apple to scrap 3G connectivity entirely, relying solely on LTE and allowing for a simpler antenna design.

The prospect of a standalone Apple Watch with LTE has also fueled speculation that Apple could be planning to add some form of integration with Android devices. While Kuo said that would boost shipments, he doesn't see Apple taking that step just yet, sticking as an iPhone-only affair.

As for how cellular data on the Apple Watch will be achieved, Kuo believes Apple will use eSIM technology instead of a physical SIM card. That's no surprise: To date, the Apple Watch has not featured any kind of user-accessible physical port for input, which is why users must mail their watch into Apple if a beta breaks the system.




Kuo noted that because not all carriers support eSIM, it's possible that the Apple Watch's LTE connection could only support certain countries and markets.

He believes that Qualcomm will be responsible for the baseband chip in the so-called "Apple Watch Series 3." While Intel offers a competing chip, it isn't as efficient as Qualcomm's product, he said.

Multiple recent reports, including a missive from Kuo himself, have all indicated Apple will offer a new LTE model for the Apple Watch later this year. Corroborating reports have come from Bloomberg and CNBC.




Kuo's latest note does disagree with Bloomberg on one key point: The analyst's prediction of a Qualcomm modem is different than the publication, which said earlier this month that it will be Intel providing the LTE modem. The disparity could indicate that both are right, and Apple will use two manufacturers for different models, or perhaps different markets -- just as the company already does with the iPhone 7 series.

One isolated report claimed the third-generation Apple Watch could see a redesigned chassis, but the publisher of that rumor quickly hedged their bets, and subsequent reports disagreed, saying it will keep the same general form factor introduced in 2015.

All is expected to be revealed in September, when Apple is expected to host a media event headlined by the unveiling of its next-generation flagship "iPhone 8," along with an "iPhone 7s" series, marking three new iPhone launches this fall. It's expected that the "Apple Watch Series 3" will launch around the same time, while other, previously announced products like HomePod and the iMac Pro are scheduled to arrive in December.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 61
    As a runner, as long as I can send an iMessage or make a Facetime audio call when I'm on a run away from my iPhone, Apple can take my money!
    xzudavenmattinozcornchiplolliverwatto_cobraGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 2 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,288member


    He believes that Qualcomm will be responsible for the baseband chip in the so-called "Apple Watch Series 3." While Intel offers a competing chip, it isn't as efficient as Qualcomm's product, he said.
    Qualcomm? Huh. 
  • Reply 3 of 61
    It looks the same? Deal breaker
    It has no LTE? Deal breaker
    It has LTE to drain the battery? Deal breaker
    It has LTE but you can't make calls? Deal breaker
    /s

    Solipscooter63cornchipleavingthebigglolliverwatto_cobraGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 4 of 61
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    It looks the same? Deal breaker
    It has no LTE? Deal breaker
    It has LTE to drain the battery? Deal breaker
    It has LTE but you can't make calls? Deal breaker
    /s

    None of that makes any sense.
    stanhopesteveau
  • Reply 5 of 61
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    I do believe that Apple should make this compatible with Android. At least, make an app for Android to set and control it as well as to allow updates. Likely they would have to make it work with Google Play, and Pay as well. That’s too bad, but any Android buyer of this probably wouldn’t want to get apps from the Apple App Store, or to maintain an Apple credit card account.

    still, I think they should do it because unlike the iPhone, this isn’t nearly as likely to be a gateway to other Apple products as the iPhone is, so it doesn’t need software integration as much. Considering that the phone has about a 40% user share here in the USA, and a much smaller percentage elsewhere, even among those who buy expensive Android models, it could expand sales enough to ensure its dominance.
  • Reply 6 of 61
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,483member
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    stanhope
  • Reply 7 of 61
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,799member
    melgross said:
    It looks the same? Deal breaker
    It has no LTE? Deal breaker
    It has LTE to drain the battery? Deal breaker
    It has LTE but you can't make calls? Deal breaker
    /s

    None of that makes any sense.
    May not make sense but that’s the exact narrative we will be bombarded with.
    SoliStrangeDayspscooter63cornchipsuddenly newtonleavingthebigglolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 61
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    edited August 2017 cornchipwatto_cobrastanhope
  • Reply 9 of 61
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,687member
    melgross said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.


    2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 10 of 61
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,475member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.


    2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
    Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?

    thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
    edited August 2017 StrangeDayslolliver
  • Reply 11 of 61
    Sounds like a pager service.  Which is perfect, since you have your phone right there!  Except you don't need your phone with the new Apple Watch, because it has LTE.  Except you DO need it to call back.  Or you could record a voice message and the Watch will send it.  Now we're talking!

    Seriously, since the main use of the watch seems to be tracking your laps, and managing the notifications you really don't want to miss, LTE seems to be a perfectly valid notification-of-messages enhancement.  Most people won't go for it but people whose work and personal lives approximate the job description of First Responders will be quite grateful to grab one.  I certainly can't quarrel with that, since it might end up saving my own life someday.  Cheers!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 61
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.


    2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
    Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?

    thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
    I just call the Watch (cap W), which is technically correct?
    StrangeDayslolliverpalomine
  • Reply 13 of 61
    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    It looks the same? Deal breaker
    It has no LTE? Deal breaker
    It has LTE to drain the battery? Deal breaker
    It has LTE but you can't make calls? Deal breaker
    /s

    None of that makes any sense.
    May not make sense but that’s the exact narrative we will be bombarded with.
    It’s already started in other sites. People complained calling with Watch will drain battery and now people complained watch with LTE can’t make call even though it is likely the battery life will not be affected. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 61
    holyoneholyone Posts: 383member
    Might this not have something to do with the fact that maintaining a live phone call on such a small device might rather dramatically run the battery to near zero ? I think small controlled data packets sent from and to the watch at a suitable rate and magnitude is more feasible and appropriate at this moment, in fact considering how little regard Apple has for batteries I just don't see how making calls on the watch is ever going to work, it must be remembered that its just not the watch but also the network which Apple doesn't custom design, part of me thinks Jony and gang are betting big on solid sate or something like it coming at some point soon  
    lolliver
  • Reply 15 of 61
    Data is the key... Who really finds it conveniant to make call on the watch?
    mr o
  • Reply 16 of 61
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,687member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.


    2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
    Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?

    thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
    That's utter bullshit and fucking stupid. It you start saying or writing "pbp" no one is going to know what the fuck you're talking about without context. Can you show me where MBP is a "correct abbreviation" as I've never seen Apple use it and can't find it on their list of trademarks, so who the hell made it _official_? You? The point of communication is to get your damn point across so if you say iTouch instead of iPod Touch I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about in this forum without you _going grammando_.

    edited August 2017
  • Reply 17 of 61
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    melgross said:
    It looks the same? Deal breaker
    It has no LTE? Deal breaker
    It has LTE to drain the battery? Deal breaker
    It has LTE but you can't make calls? Deal breaker
    /s

    None of that makes any sense.
    Tell that to the people who whine about those items.

    melgross said:
    I do believe that Apple should make this compatible with Android. At least, make an app for Android to set and control it as well as to allow updates. Likely they would have to make it work with Google Play, and Pay as well. That’s too bad, but any Android buyer of this probably wouldn’t want to get apps from the Apple App Store, or to maintain an Apple credit card account.
    You're suggesting Apple make the Apple Watch run Android apps? Uh, that's not going to happen, in a million years. It runs watchOS apps because watchOS is based on iOS.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 61
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    holyone said:
    Might this not have something to do with the fact that maintaining a live phone call on such a small device might rather dramatically run the battery to near zero ? I think small controlled data packets sent from and to the watch at a suitable rate and magnitude is more feasible and appropriate at this moment, in fact considering how little regard Apple has for batteries 
    Huh? Apple devices are among the most considerate for batteries. On macOS Safari is much more power efficient than Chrome for this reason. 
    Solipscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 61
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.


    2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
    Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?

    thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
    That's utter bullshit and fucking stupid. It you start saying or writing "pbp" no one is going to know what the fuck you're talking about without context. Can you show me where MBP is a "correct abbreviation" as I've never seen Apple use it and can't find it on their list of trademarks, so who the hell made it _official_? You? The point of communication is to get your damn point across so if you say iTouch instead of iPod Touch I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about in this forum without you _going grammando_.

    If you say iTouch, just because we know what you mean doesn't mean you aren't using the wrong word. People use the wrong words in language all the time, despite others knowing what they mean. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what we think about it.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 20 of 61
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,687member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch. 
    It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.

    It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
    1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.


    2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
    Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?

    thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
    That's utter bullshit and fucking stupid. It you start saying or writing "pbp" no one is going to know what the fuck you're talking about without context. Can you show me where MBP is a "correct abbreviation" as I've never seen Apple use it and can't find it on their list of trademarks, so who the hell made it _official_? You? The point of communication is to get your damn point across so if you say iTouch instead of iPod Touch I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about in this forum without you _going grammando_.

    If you say iTouch, just because we know what you mean doesn't mean you aren't using the wrong word. People use the wrong words in language all the time, despite others knowing what they mean. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what we think about it.
    1) No, no it's not. There are no absolute rules in language and the rules are changing all the time. For example, do you consider ain't acceptable? If not, why?

    2) Every… single… day… of your life you're using language that has changed and evolved from some earlier formation. Which, according to your "wrong is wrong" statement, would make you a hypocrite. Do you think you're a hypocrite when it comes to communication?

    3) 

    4) https://books.google.com/books/about/Origins_of_the_Specious.html

    5) http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2016/02/invented-words/

    6) http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html

    7) 

    8) iOS is a great example. Just like with iTouch, people started using it as a contraction of iPod Touch, and because the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad all used the same OS X base forked from macOS nee Mac OS, people started calling it iOS. It wasn't until years later that Apple finally adopted iOS as their official trademark. They first referred to it as the iPhone firmware, and later as OS X iPhone and iPhone OS, before settling on the grassroots usage of iOS.



    edited August 2017 cornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.