Apple announces $399 Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular, letting you ditch your iPhone for...

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 98

    Not sure if I appreciate all the cellular models featuring a red Digital Crown...
    I absolutely LOVE it. Funny how that works, isn't it...
    You just KNOW someone is going to offer an aftermarket crown with a diamond on it.
  • Reply 62 of 98
    melgross said:
    AppleZulu said:
    dkimak said:
    Was anything said about battery life?
    Pretty sure I heard "all day" and something to the effect of '18 hours with LTE and WiFi on.'
    The original spec for the first Watch was all day with normal use, or 18 hours. I get two days out of my Series 2. I don’t use GPS too much. If you don’t, then life between charges is greatly extended. They had to increase the depth of the case very slightly for a larger battery, but kept the one day/18 hours the same. I’m impressed they kept it the same again, as the cell needs to be on all the time to be able to receive calls, and the big question was wherher Apple would give a shorter life. They didn’t!

    it’s pretty impressive, and I don’t mind saying it twice in one post.
    The cellular chip doesn't turn on if Wi-Fi is in range and the watch can join Wi-Fi. 
    dws-2
  • Reply 63 of 98
    sirozha said:
    eightzero said:
    This was a highlight today. I will upgrade to one at some point, but I suspect it will be when carriers start tossing in the cellular connection for free. Sure, an "intro rate" is all fine and good (and I see they didn't discuss those) but I'm wary of these add ons. It adds up quickly.

    The price will drop, and carriers will use that add-in as a promo. Then I'll bite. For now, I really like my original.
    Your best bet is with T-Mobile. 
    Yep. I switched to them from AT&T last month. 
    dws-2
  • Reply 64 of 98
    What's with the ugly red dot on the crown dial of the cellular model? That's so tacky looking, it would put me off buying it. Good thing I don't need the cellular!
  • Reply 65 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,368member
    eightzero said:
    mwhite said:
    diruocco said:
    you would still need an iPhone to make this all work right?
    Nope. You can use it without a phone, but you would of course need to have a cellular plan. I don't believe they mentioned how much such plans would run for the new Watch.


    Nope.
    Yeah, what a scam. 10 bucks a month just to have the device on the cellular network seems absurd. These are the same clowns that scammed us on SMS costs for years and years.
    I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
  • Reply 66 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,368member

    mac_128 said:
    tylersdad said:
    I don't understand why they'd keep the Series 1 and get rid of the Series 2. Why not lower the price of the Series 2 to Series 1 levels? 
    I agree. The Series 1 is not waterproof. While it's sufficiently water resistant for most, doesn't it make sense to eliminate that problem completely from such a device? Did they maybe upgrade the water proofing on the Series 1 to that of the Series 2?
    They’re all water resistant. The difference is by how much. There is no thing as waterproof.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 67 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,368member
    sirozha said:
    melgross said:
    AppleZulu said:
    dkimak said:
    Was anything said about battery life?
    Pretty sure I heard "all day" and something to the effect of '18 hours with LTE and WiFi on.'
    The original spec for the first Watch was all day with normal use, or 18 hours. I get two days out of my Series 2. I don’t use GPS too much. If you don’t, then life between charges is greatly extended. They had to increase the depth of the case very slightly for a larger battery, but kept the one day/18 hours the same. I’m impressed they kept it the same again, as the cell needs to be on all the time to be able to receive calls, and the big question was wherher Apple would give a shorter life. They didn’t!

    it’s pretty impressive, and I don’t mind saying it twice in one post.
    The cellular chip doesn't turn on if Wi-Fi is in range and the watch can join Wi-Fi. 
    It’s on all the time when you don’t have your watch near, which is the whole point. When Apple rated this, they had to rate it as though you had no phone with you all day. Otherwise, there would be a problem as soon as people began to buy this.
  • Reply 68 of 98
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,362member
    cgWerks said:
    But, I'll admit that while I'm not sure I'll get one anytime soon, this *finally* makes the Watch a bit useful. While I'm sure it will be quite limited (in comparison to what people are imagining), this is the killer feature for the Watch.
    I'm of the opinion that different people have different primary use cases. I've had immense usefulness out of my AW from day 1. Workout tracking, wireless ipod, notifications, payments, home lighting control. Here LTE isn't a killer feature or even a requirement. But what do I know, I only have one and use it daily.
    I should maybe rephrase that (generalization) to, useful beyond having an iPhone for the typical user. I can do nearly all that stuff with the iPhone too, and since it needs to be with me anyway (until now), the Watch didn't add much except for very specific use-cases or if I just wanted to wear a watch. I see some argument for notifications being more subtle, I suppose.

    sirozha said:
    dkimak said:
    Was anything said about battery life?
    18 hours like Apple Watch 2. However, my Apple Warch 2 normally lasts 48 hours. 
    I think people asking might be wanting to know how using the various functionality impacts battery life (like LTE).
    See: https://www.apple.com/watch/battery.html
    (For example, < 1hr if you make phone calls w/o your iPhone.)

    edited September 2017
  • Reply 69 of 98
    Wondering if you can have two. I love owning both a silver and space grey watch. Would not want to go back to only having one color. 
  • Reply 70 of 98
    What are the differences between the Series 2 and the Series 3 without cellular? 
  • Reply 71 of 98
    lkrupp said:
    NY1822 said:
    wonder how much that streaming music eats into your data?
    Streaming music uses very little data. It's the video that gets you into trouble.
     Maybe you can help me, the series 2 was able to store 2GB  of music locally on the watch I have not been able to find how many GB on the series 3 watch will I be able to store
  • Reply 72 of 98
    HOW MANY GB WILL I BE ABLE TO STORE LOCALLY.....????????? No answers anywhere
    the series 2 allowed only 2GB........no answer for the series 3????
  • Reply 73 of 98

    Apple Music  

    Top streaming quality: 256 kbps
    One hour of streaming eats through: 115.2 megabytes (MB) of data
    Streaming time until 1 gigabyte (GB) of data is used: 8.7 hours


    So a week of working out without wifi will cost me 1GB of data while streaming music


    https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/how-much-data-does-spotify-use-streaming-music-apps

    edited September 2017
  • Reply 74 of 98
    diruocco said:
    you would still need an iPhone to make this all work right?
    Nope. You can use it without a phone, but you would of course need to have a cellular plan. I don't believe they mentioned how much such plans would run for the new Watch.

    So.... apparently all the carriers except Sprint have all announced $10/month plans with an initial 3 months of free service. Here's a link to an article from 9to5mac. 
  • Reply 75 of 98
    I am greatly disappointed with Apple's lack of concern for the battery life of the AW3. Many competitors have greater battery capacity and more useful functions than the AW3. Some have battery life up to 2 weeks in a single charge. What is wrong with Apple? Why not improve the battery life?  I suffer from a sleep disorder and would like to have sleep tracking.  AW3 only has an 18 hour charge and because of this there can be no sleep tracking done. I guess I have to look at Apple's competitors for a watch which can provide me these features. Apple really dropped the ball on this one.
  • Reply 76 of 98
    I am greatly disappointed with Apple's lack of concern for the battery life of the AW3. Many competitors have greater battery capacity and more useful functions than the AW3. Some have battery life up to 2 weeks in a single charge. What is wrong with Apple? Why not improve the battery life?  I suffer from a sleep disorder and would like to have sleep tracking.  AW3 only has an 18 hour charge and because of this there can be no sleep tracking done. I guess I have to look at Apple's competitors for a watch which can provide me these features. Apple really dropped the ball on this one.
    I see this complaint all the time. The Series 2 Apple Watch was also rated for only 18 hours of charge. But under most circumstances with my own use, I am able to go 40 hours or more on a charge. I used it for sleep tracking for months when I first got it. It charges in about 1.5 hours from nearly 0%. Most days, I would throw it on the charger while getting ready for work and had at least an 85% charge by the time I put it back on. 

    There are a couple of strategies to extend the battery life when using it for sleep tracking. To get the most battery life, put the watch in Airplane Mode before going to bed. This turns off all the radios. Turn on Theater Mode. This turns off the Wake Screen on Wrist Raise feature and mutes the watch. Finally, probably overkill since notifications are probably impossible in Airplane Mode, but you can also turn on Do Not Disturb.

    When I was doing overnight sleep tracking, I used only Theater Mode. By the next morning the watch used less than 10% of the battery in 7 hours or so.

    So, if your fear is that the Apple Watch won’t be useful because of too short battery life, you shouldn’t worry. Apple has you covered.
  • Reply 77 of 98
    melgross said:
    eightzero said:
    mwhite said:
    diruocco said:
    you would still need an iPhone to make this all work right?
    Nope. You can use it without a phone, but you would of course need to have a cellular plan. I don't believe they mentioned how much such plans would run for the new Watch.


    Nope.
    Yeah, what a scam. 10 bucks a month just to have the device on the cellular network seems absurd. These are the same clowns that scammed us on SMS costs for years and years.
    I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
    Well, this is their starting price. Surely prices will fall as competition increases.
  • Reply 78 of 98
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,362member
    jdb8167 said:
    There are a couple of strategies to extend the battery life when using it for sleep tracking. To get the most battery life, put the watch in Airplane Mode before going to bed. This turns off all the radios. Turn on Theater Mode. This turns off the Wake Screen on Wrist Raise feature and mutes the watch. Finally, probably overkill since notifications are probably impossible in Airplane Mode, but you can also turn on Do Not Disturb.
    Probably good tips anyway if you're going to wear something with radios for that much time. While we don't know, for sure, what the final impact of all these radios strapped to our bodies or in our ears will be, we do know there WILL be some impact (gene expression, cellular communication, etc. ... not just cell damage, which is what they currently test for). Better safe than sorry.
  • Reply 79 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,368member
    I am greatly disappointed with Apple's lack of concern for the battery life of the AW3. Many competitors have greater battery capacity and more useful functions than the AW3. Some have battery life up to 2 weeks in a single charge. What is wrong with Apple? Why not improve the battery life?  I suffer from a sleep disorder and would like to have sleep tracking.  AW3 only has an 18 hour charge and because of this there can be no sleep tracking done. I guess I have to look at Apple's competitors for a watch which can provide me these features. Apple really dropped the ball on this one.
    Those watches that have long battery lives don’t do much. If you want a full featured smartwatch, be prepared to charge every night, or every other night as I do with my Series 2.
  • Reply 80 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,368member

    melgross said:
    eightzero said:
    mwhite said:
    diruocco said:
    you would still need an iPhone to make this all work right?
    Nope. You can use it without a phone, but you would of course need to have a cellular plan. I don't believe they mentioned how much such plans would run for the new Watch.


    Nope.
    Yeah, what a scam. 10 bucks a month just to have the device on the cellular network seems absurd. These are the same clowns that scammed us on SMS costs for years and years.
    I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
    Well, this is their starting price. Surely prices will fall as competition increases.
    I find it annoying that they raised them. Why did they do that? Verizon had $5 on their web page for that. Now it’s double, the same price as for our iPads, which I have no doubt will continue to use far more of the bandwidth. After all, the data for these will come out of the same allocation as for the rest of our devices.

    what I’m wondering about is whether they will give an extra amount per device as they do for our phones now. That’s 2GB per month for each of our three phones. I’ve never looked to see if they do that for our iPads as well. I guess I’ll have to look at the bill. If they do, then the $10 isn’t as bad as all that, but I doubt they will.
    edited September 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.