Adding LTE to the watch was, I believe, a huge improvement. But, it must also be realized that this does not actually add any functionality to the watch. It just makes it a (far) better stand-alone device.
For myself: I wear a Gen 0 throughout my waking hours and use it daily for running, cycling and strength training. While I would love to have a Series 3 (brighter screen, faster processor and more independence from the iPhone), I am still waiting for some actual functional improvements in the Watch before upgrading.
... Right now, there's nothing I could do on a Series 3 LTE that I can't already do on my 1 year old Gen 0.
This is incorrect. The series 0 cannot do the new advanced HR monitoring features in watchOS 4. Hardware difference. Siri voice isn’t possible on 0. And lastly my 0 is just so slow with siri and HK that it’s almost unusable, my screen sleeps before it finishes processing requests, so the 3 gains functionality there too.
Gen 0 monitors heart rate just fine. No problems here -- at least none that a Series whatever would solve.
"Just fine" isn't what we're commenting on. You said the 3 doesn't do anything the 0 doesn't, which is false. There are two new HR categories that 2 and 3 can collect and report which the 0 cannot. This is simply a fact.
The limits on local music storage remain something of a mystery -- I managed to sync more than 4 gigabytes of music with one playlist and the "Heavy Rotation" feature. But when I attempted to add another playlist, the iPhone Watch app told me I could not transfer anymore, despite the fact that I had a whopping 9 gigabytes of storage available.
So still not an adequate replacement for the iPod nano and shuffle they've discontinued? Odd that they won't just publish the local music sync storage specs.
Plus there is the weird "can't browse music library from your iPhone" change that I hope will be addressed.
This doesnt strike me as weird or a bother. My non-techie SO was routinely flummoxed by this, believing to be picking music from the Watch while prepping for a run then once running outside of phone-range having the music drop out and not knowing why or how to fix it. Caused aggravation. That won't happen now, especially since I'd bet most people have a "working out" or "running" or whatever playlist. And what is lost? To be able to play *any* music from a nearby phone now you have to start it on the phone first. Eh, not so big of a deal. Sure it could be if the phone is in your backpack or gym locker or whatever, but I'd bet Apple knows that use case is less than people being annoyed by my SO's use case. Just a hunch. So I think it was done in the name of simplicity and I bet we won't see it return. Especially with LTE streaming of entire iCloud Music Library coming up.
Browsing your iPhone music library from your watch is extremely convenient when you are doing things like riding a crowded subway train, or carrying your phone in a backpack. I've also heard from people who go to the gym and leave their iPhone in a locker and remotely access their music library, because the Bluetooth reaches far enough.
I think you're mostly right — the default Music app on Apple Watch should show music on the watch itself or in the cloud. But Apple should bring back an option to choose to browse music from a connected phone, if the user wishes. Or maybe make it a separate app, like iTunes Remote for iOS.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?
Watch band sizes are pretty standard, and I can't see the width of the watch screen itself getting any smaller, so unless there was a pressing reason to change the size of the connector on the band that slides into the watch (which itself is pretty small), changing the bands seems unnecessary. This is, of course, barring some unforeseen major shakeup in how we use and interact with the watch — but that's not really how Apple works, so I don't see that happening.
Cases are different. They're typically less expensive (unless we're talking about a battery case — and even then, you usually buy just one battery case). And let's not forget that Apple has maintained generally the same form factor on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8, save for a dual-camera cutout starting with the 7 Plus.
Look at the prices on bands. $50 for the sport, sport loop, Nike, and nylon. $150 for leather, leather loop, buckle and milanese loop. $450+ for the link bracelet. Find me a $450 iPhone case at the Apple store.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?
Watch band sizes are pretty standard, and I can't see the width of the watch screen itself getting any smaller, so unless there was a pressing reason to change the size of the connector on the band that slides into the watch (which itself is pretty small), changing the bands seems unnecessary. This is, of course, barring some unforeseen major shakeup in how we use and interact with the watch — but that's not really how Apple works, so I don't see that happening.
Cases are different. They're typically less expensive (unless we're talking about a battery case — and even then, you usually buy just one battery case). And let's not forget that Apple has maintained generally the same form factor on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8, save for a dual-camera cutout starting with the 7 Plus.
Look at the prices on bands. $50 for the sport, sport loop, Nike, and nylon. $150 for leather, leather loop, buckle and milanese loop. $450+ for the link bracelet. Find me a $450 iPhone case at the Apple store.
That is my thinking. When I say "smart band", it is under the assumption that Apple could keep the case connector shape & attachment mechanism the same, to provide backwards compatibility to existing bands, while also adding a data/power interface (along the lines of iPad Smart Connector).
Apple should be able to slightly modify the AW case design (thinner /thicker, change the bezels) without changing the watch band interface. I agree it would be a mutiny otherwise (many people having hundreds of $$ in such bands, likely more $$ than many had with the original iPod connector I would wager).
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?
Watch band sizes are pretty standard, and I can't see the width of the watch screen itself getting any smaller, so unless there was a pressing reason to change the size of the connector on the band that slides into the watch (which itself is pretty small), changing the bands seems unnecessary. This is, of course, barring some unforeseen major shakeup in how we use and interact with the watch — but that's not really how Apple works, so I don't see that happening.
Cases are different. They're typically less expensive (unless we're talking about a battery case — and even then, you usually buy just one battery case). And let's not forget that Apple has maintained generally the same form factor on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8, save for a dual-camera cutout starting with the 7 Plus.
Look at the prices on bands. $50 for the sport, sport loop, Nike, and nylon. $150 for leather, leather loop, buckle and milanese loop. $450+ for the link bracelet. Find me a $450 iPhone case at the Apple store.
That is my thinking. When I say "smart band", it is under the assumption that Apple could keep the case connector shape & attachment mechanism the same, to provide backwards compatibility to existing bands, while also adding a data/power interface (along the lines of iPad Smart Connector).
Apple should be able to slightly modify the AW case design (thinner /thicker, change the bezels) without changing the watch band interface. I agree it would be a mutiny otherwise (many people having hundreds of $$ in such bands, likely more $$ than many had with the original iPod connector I would wager).
Also important to note that even if Apple does create a "smart band" platform, not every customer is going to actually *want* a smart band. Bands are popular and are a major selling point for Apple Watch because of fashion/aesthetics, personal preference, and practicality for things like working out vs. going out. Even if a smart band was thin and light and normal looking, who's to say that it would add the functionality a particular user might want? The possible combinations will make your head spin — workout band with blood oxygen meter, metal link band with extra battery, leather band with glucose meter, whatever.
I don't think smart bands alone would be reason enough to blow up the current, established band ecosystem. With a phone, the cases are cheaper (Apple's own silicone cases are actually on the "pricey" side at $35) and they cover the entire device. With watch bands, they don't actually cover the device at all, so a theoretical form factor change doesn't necessarily mean the band is obsolete.
Maybe I'll eat my words in a year, who knows. But I think Apple will probably try to retain band compatibility for a long, long while, for a number of reasons, including earning goodwill from early adopters — probably the same reason watchOS 4 runs on the ultra-slow first-gen Apple Watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if watchOS 5 does too.
Excellent article Nhughes! For me, the red dot is a non issue and doesn't detract from the watch's overall beauty. I purchased the Space Black Milanese Loop to go with my stainless steel model and couldn't be more pleased. Also, I actually got a day and a half of usage before it needed to be charged. Having come from the original 2015 version of the watch, the AW3 is huge!
Yep, there is an option in settings to connect to Bluetooth health accessories, so your Polar heartbeat strap should work fine (assuming it connects with your iPhone, at least). So you can run an external heart rate monitor (which disables the watch's own monitor and prefers the external one), and connect to Bluetooth headphones at the same time.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
Well that doesn't really bode well for audio books, which is my preferred distraction while cardio-ing, does it? Any chance you tried that? I don't really mind resaving my books as music, but in the past, I've lost the ability to pick up where I left off when doing that.
Yep, there is an option in settings to connect to Bluetooth health accessories, so your Polar heartbeat strap should work fine (assuming it connects with your iPhone, at least). So you can run an external heart rate monitor (which disables the watch's own monitor and prefers the external one), and connect to Bluetooth headphones at the same time.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
Well that doesn't really bode well for audio books, which is my preferred distraction while cardio-ing, does it? Any chance you tried that? I don't really mind resaving my books as music, but in the past, I've lost the ability to pick up where I left off when doing that.
Haven't tried audiobooks, but a quick search shows its a similarly bad situation. The only resolution is stripping the DRM from Audible and iBooks purchases, then syncing either via iTunes or with an app like this one:
Yep, there is an option in settings to connect to Bluetooth health accessories, so your Polar heartbeat strap should work fine (assuming it connects with your iPhone, at least). So you can run an external heart rate monitor (which disables the watch's own monitor and prefers the external one), and connect to Bluetooth headphones at the same time.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
Well that doesn't really bode well for audio books, which is my preferred distraction while cardio-ing, does it? Any chance you tried that? I don't really mind resaving my books as music, but in the past, I've lost the ability to pick up where I left off when doing that.
Haven't tried audiobooks, but a quick search shows its a similarly bad situation. The only resolution is stripping the DRM from Audible and iBooks purchases, then syncing either via iTunes or with an app like this one:
DRM isn't really an issue for me, so I guess I'll see what I can do. Or maybe it's finally a good time to actually get off my ass and learn Swift development.
first gen Apple Watch owner here...nice to see the incremental improvements. wrt the authors question on the length of the lifecycle of the Apple Watch, mine is now 2 yrs old and I feel zero desire to upgrade and very minimal feature envy wrt the newer models. that's a good thing in my book.
what would cause me to upgrade? more health sensing (body temp, glucose, oxygen levels, etc...anything that gives me insight into my body). significantly longer battery life (not incremental, but like 1 week battery life, so a ways off). novel features, like the ability to unlock and start my car, call for help automatically if my vitals look wrong, etc.
Adding LTE to the watch was, I believe, a huge improvement. But, it must also be realized that this does not actually add any functionality to the watch. It just makes it a (far) better stand-alone device.
For myself: I wear a Gen 0 throughout my waking hours and use it daily for running, cycling and strength training. While I would love to have a Series 3 (brighter screen, faster processor and more independence from the iPhone), I am still waiting for some actual functional improvements in the Watch before upgrading.
... Right now, there's nothing I could do on a Series 3 LTE that I can't already do on my 1 year old Gen 0.
This is incorrect. The series 0 cannot do the new advanced HR monitoring features in watchOS 4. Hardware difference. Siri voice isn’t possible on 0. And lastly my 0 is just so slow with siri and HK that it’s almost unusable, my screen sleeps before it finishes processing requests, so the 3 gains functionality there too.
Gen 0 monitors heart rate just fine. No problems here -- at least none that a Series whatever would solve.
"Just fine" isn't what we're commenting on. You said the 3 doesn't do anything the 0 doesn't, which is false. There are two new HR categories that 2 and 3 can collect and report which the 0 cannot. This is simply a fact.
HR is how many beats per minute your heart beats.... ... So how does the new watch count that any differently than the Gen 0? ........1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Doesn't seem too complicated...
Yep, there is an option in settings to connect to Bluetooth health accessories, so your Polar heartbeat strap should work fine (assuming it connects with your iPhone, at least). So you can run an external heart rate monitor (which disables the watch's own monitor and prefers the external one), and connect to Bluetooth headphones at the same time.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
Well that doesn't really bode well for audio books, which is my preferred distraction while cardio-ing, does it? Any chance you tried that? I don't really mind resaving my books as music, but in the past, I've lost the ability to pick up where I left off when doing that.
Haven't tried audiobooks, but a quick search shows its a similarly bad situation. The only resolution is stripping the DRM from Audible and iBooks purchases, then syncing either via iTunes or with an app like this one:
Yep, there is an option in settings to connect to Bluetooth health accessories, so your Polar heartbeat strap should work fine (assuming it connects with your iPhone, at least). So you can run an external heart rate monitor (which disables the watch's own monitor and prefers the external one), and connect to Bluetooth headphones at the same time.
Sorry to say that podcast support is abysmal. People have worked around it by downloading podcasts, loading them into iTunes as music files, adding them to a playlist, syncing them to a phone, and then syncing that playlist to a watch. Overcast (a third-party app) did have Apple Watch support with locally saved files, but I believe it was pulled from a recent update due to changes in watchOS 4. Podcasts are an area where Apple has really screwed the pooch on Apple Watch, and seem to me to be low hanging fruit for them to fix in a software update.
Well that doesn't really bode well for audio books, which is my preferred distraction while cardio-ing, does it? Any chance you tried that? I don't really mind resaving my books as music, but in the past, I've lost the ability to pick up where I left off when doing that.
Haven't tried audiobooks, but a quick search shows its a similarly bad situation. The only resolution is stripping the DRM from Audible and iBooks purchases, then syncing either via iTunes or with an app like this one:
Apple has never shown any love toward audio books... ... I forget which release where all of mine purchased from iTunes disapeared from my phone.
I can understand the lack of love for podcasts because they can't monetize it, even though they invented it, but with audiobooks it seems like it would be in their best interest to support it since they make money off of each one sold through iTunes Store and their Audible partner.
first gen Apple Watch owner here...nice to see the incremental improvements. wrt the authors question on the length of the lifecycle of the Apple Watch, mine is now 2 yrs old and I feel zero desire to upgrade and very minimal feature envy wrt the newer models. that's a good thing in my book.
what would cause me to upgrade? more health sensing (body temp, glucose, oxygen levels, etc...anything that gives me insight into my body). significantly longer battery life (not incremental, but like 1 week battery life, so a ways off). novel features, like the ability to unlock and start my car, call for help automatically if my vitals look wrong, etc.
Yes, if you aren't using it for exercise, I can totally see how you would not be tempted.
But, I can see how some of that could be feasibly incorporated: The LifeLine devices for older people are meant to enable them to call for help whenever needed -- and one of the features on some of them is detecting when somebody falls and automatically calling for help. I could see the Apple Watch (with all of its motion and elevation sensors doing something like that). Plus, it wouldn't have the ongoing expense of a LifeLine device. And neither would it have the bulk and ugliness of the device. And it would not be something they would need to take off when doing things like taking a shower (which is one of the most common times to fall).
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?
Watch band sizes are pretty standard, and I can't see the width of the watch screen itself getting any smaller, so unless there was a pressing reason to change the size of the connector on the band that slides into the watch (which itself is pretty small), changing the bands seems unnecessary. This is, of course, barring some unforeseen major shakeup in how we use and interact with the watch — but that's not really how Apple works, so I don't see that happening.
Cases are different. They're typically less expensive (unless we're talking about a battery case — and even then, you usually buy just one battery case). And let's not forget that Apple has maintained generally the same form factor on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8, save for a dual-camera cutout starting with the 7 Plus.
Look at the prices on bands. $50 for the sport, sport loop, Nike, and nylon. $150 for leather, leather loop, buckle and milanese loop. $450+ for the link bracelet. Find me a $450 iPhone case at the Apple store.
That is my thinking. When I say "smart band", it is under the assumption that Apple could keep the case connector shape & attachment mechanism the same, to provide backwards compatibility to existing bands, while also adding a data/power interface (along the lines of iPad Smart Connector).
Apple should be able to slightly modify the AW case design (thinner /thicker, change the bezels) without changing the watch band interface. I agree it would be a mutiny otherwise (many people having hundreds of $$ in such bands, likely more $$ than many had with the original iPod connector I would wager).
Also important to note that even if Apple does create a "smart band" platform, not every customer is going to actually *want* a smart band. Bands are popular and are a major selling point for Apple Watch because of fashion/aesthetics, personal preference, and practicality for things like working out vs. going out. Even if a smart band was thin and light and normal looking, who's to say that it would add the functionality a particular user might want? The possible combinations will make your head spin — workout band with blood oxygen meter, metal link band with extra battery, leather band with glucose meter, whatever.
I don't think smart bands alone would be reason enough to blow up the current, established band ecosystem. With a phone, the cases are cheaper (Apple's own silicone cases are actually on the "pricey" side at $35) and they cover the entire device. With watch bands, they don't actually cover the device at all, so a theoretical form factor change doesn't necessarily mean the band is obsolete.
Maybe I'll eat my words in a year, who knows. But I think Apple will probably try to retain band compatibility for a long, long while, for a number of reasons, including earning goodwill from early adopters — probably the same reason watchOS 4 runs on the ultra-slow first-gen Apple Watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if watchOS 5 does too.
Well put me in the category that Apple won't hesitate to make whatever changes are necessary to fulfill their aesthetic or technological vision, including requiring customers to upgrade all of their bands. Maybe I'll eat my words in a year or two, but I don't think so.
Most likely, Apple will continue to offer a compatible model of the watch in the existing style, so a customer can choose, let's say a round watch with new bands, or an identical square watch with the same bands, or a thinner square watch with new bands. Or maybe, Apple expects the customer to buy all three, and compatible bands to go with them. Or yes, even models with smart bands -- a choice I see much like LTE, which not everyone is going to want, nor see the benefits of ...
Jony Ive is a watch guy. Typically speaking, Watch guys buy more than one watch, and when they do, they tend to buy them with matching bands, and don't change them, unless they break or wear or out, and even then they tend to replace them with the same type of band they had before, especially when it comes to metal bracelets. So at a certain point, while he got behind the interchangeable bands, something that even watch guys would enjoy doing -- designer interchangable grosgrain bands were hugely popular in the 80s -- most people have specific combinations they typically want to wear. And at some point, just like the grosgrain fad from the 80s, the fad of swapping out bands and having massive band collections will no longer be the motivating factor behind purchasing the watch. If the design gets old looking, or boring, and Apple can't freshen it up without charging those band attachments, then I don't think they will. They'll treat it like any other watch a customer might buy. For the most part, any Apple watch a customer buys today will likely continue to work for years to come, until they get tired of wearing it, or desperately need some new feature it doesn't have. This is just like any watch in a person's collection. So that investment in bands will continue to be useful, likely until the bands themselves wear out, whether the new watch is compatible with them or not. And having multiple Apple Watches will give customers even more choice for the look of their watch, than they already have, likely without giving up too much in the process.
The reason I have any hesitation is looking to see what next year's would have - not because next year's is always better - but that cellular functionality isn't a big deal for me. I am hoping for the addition of smart bands and a low-power always-on display. However, I think I will get Series 3, and if those functions come next year, I will sell the Series 3 and get that.
If Apple changes the design next year and current lineup of bands no longer fit, they will face a mutiny from many current watch owners, myself included. I would welcome a redesign, or smart bands, or anything — but the existing bands need to still fit, no matter what.
So Apple should/will never change the shape of the AW so straps will still fit? Are we talking about the same Apple? Has this been a concern with iPhone shells and breaking case compatibility?
Watch band sizes are pretty standard, and I can't see the width of the watch screen itself getting any smaller, so unless there was a pressing reason to change the size of the connector on the band that slides into the watch (which itself is pretty small), changing the bands seems unnecessary. This is, of course, barring some unforeseen major shakeup in how we use and interact with the watch — but that's not really how Apple works, so I don't see that happening.
Cases are different. They're typically less expensive (unless we're talking about a battery case — and even then, you usually buy just one battery case). And let's not forget that Apple has maintained generally the same form factor on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8, save for a dual-camera cutout starting with the 7 Plus.
Look at the prices on bands. $50 for the sport, sport loop, Nike, and nylon. $150 for leather, leather loop, buckle and milanese loop. $450+ for the link bracelet. Find me a $450 iPhone case at the Apple store.
That is my thinking. When I say "smart band", it is under the assumption that Apple could keep the case connector shape & attachment mechanism the same, to provide backwards compatibility to existing bands, while also adding a data/power interface (along the lines of iPad Smart Connector).
Apple should be able to slightly modify the AW case design (thinner /thicker, change the bezels) without changing the watch band interface. I agree it would be a mutiny otherwise (many people having hundreds of $$ in such bands, likely more $$ than many had with the original iPod connector I would wager).
Also important to note that even if Apple does create a "smart band" platform, not every customer is going to actually *want* a smart band. Bands are popular and are a major selling point for Apple Watch because of fashion/aesthetics, personal preference, and practicality for things like working out vs. going out. Even if a smart band was thin and light and normal looking, who's to say that it would add the functionality a particular user might want? The possible combinations will make your head spin — workout band with blood oxygen meter, metal link band with extra battery, leather band with glucose meter, whatever.
I don't think smart bands alone would be reason enough to blow up the current, established band ecosystem. With a phone, the cases are cheaper (Apple's own silicone cases are actually on the "pricey" side at $35) and they cover the entire device. With watch bands, they don't actually cover the device at all, so a theoretical form factor change doesn't necessarily mean the band is obsolete.
Maybe I'll eat my words in a year, who knows. But I think Apple will probably try to retain band compatibility for a long, long while, for a number of reasons, including earning goodwill from early adopters — probably the same reason watchOS 4 runs on the ultra-slow first-gen Apple Watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if watchOS 5 does too.
Typically speaking, Watch guys buy more than one watch
I think this is the very reason for the bands (and swappable digital faces): To largely eliminate the need to have multiple watches. Need a dressy watch for a night out? There's a band for that. Something you can rely on in the ocean or a pool? You've got options. Something to sweat with on a run at the gym? You're covered. Casual daily band? Plenty of those. And you can change the colors and styles of faces to support them. One watch to rule them all, rather than multiple watches for different occasions.
Comments
"Just fine" isn't what we're commenting on. You said the 3 doesn't do anything the 0 doesn't, which is false. There are two new HR categories that 2 and 3 can collect and report which the 0 cannot. This is simply a fact.
I think you're mostly right — the default Music app on Apple Watch should show music on the watch itself or in the cloud. But Apple should bring back an option to choose to browse music from a connected phone, if the user wishes. Or maybe make it a separate app, like iTunes Remote for iOS.
Watch band sizes are pretty standard, and I can't see the width of the watch screen itself getting any smaller, so unless there was a pressing reason to change the size of the connector on the band that slides into the watch (which itself is pretty small), changing the bands seems unnecessary. This is, of course, barring some unforeseen major shakeup in how we use and interact with the watch — but that's not really how Apple works, so I don't see that happening.
Cases are different. They're typically less expensive (unless we're talking about a battery case — and even then, you usually buy just one battery case). And let's not forget that Apple has maintained generally the same form factor on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7 and 8, save for a dual-camera cutout starting with the 7 Plus.
Look at the prices on bands. $50 for the sport, sport loop, Nike, and nylon. $150 for leather, leather loop, buckle and milanese loop. $450+ for the link bracelet. Find me a $450 iPhone case at the Apple store.
Apple should be able to slightly modify the AW case design (thinner /thicker, change the bezels) without changing the watch band interface. I agree it would be a mutiny otherwise (many people having hundreds of $$ in such bands, likely more $$ than many had with the original iPod connector I would wager).
I don't think smart bands alone would be reason enough to blow up the current, established band ecosystem. With a phone, the cases are cheaper (Apple's own silicone cases are actually on the "pricey" side at $35) and they cover the entire device. With watch bands, they don't actually cover the device at all, so a theoretical form factor change doesn't necessarily mean the band is obsolete.
Maybe I'll eat my words in a year, who knows. But I think Apple will probably try to retain band compatibility for a long, long while, for a number of reasons, including earning goodwill from early adopters — probably the same reason watchOS 4 runs on the ultra-slow first-gen Apple Watch, and I wouldn't be surprised if watchOS 5 does too.
For me, the red dot is a non issue and doesn't detract from the watch's overall beauty. I purchased the Space Black Milanese Loop to go with my stainless steel model and couldn't be more pleased. Also, I actually got a day and a half of usage before it needed to be charged. Having come from the original 2015 version of the watch, the AW3 is huge!
Well that doesn't really bode well for audio books, which is my preferred distraction while cardio-ing, does it? Any chance you tried that? I don't really mind resaving my books as music, but in the past, I've lost the ability to pick up where I left off when doing that.
https://itunes.apple.com/US/app/id982108721?mt=8
Think we need an Audible app for watch.
DRM isn't really an issue for me, so I guess I'll see what I can do. Or maybe it's finally a good time to actually get off my ass and learn Swift development.
... So how does the new watch count that any differently than the Gen 0?
........1, 2, 3, 4, 5... Doesn't seem too complicated...
... I forget which release where all of mine purchased from iTunes disapeared from my phone.
But, I can see how some of that could be feasibly incorporated:
The LifeLine devices for older people are meant to enable them to call for help whenever needed -- and one of the features on some of them is detecting when somebody falls and automatically calling for help. I could see the Apple Watch (with all of its motion and elevation sensors doing something like that). Plus, it wouldn't have the ongoing expense of a LifeLine device. And neither would it have the bulk and ugliness of the device. And it would not be something they would need to take off when doing things like taking a shower (which is one of the most common times to fall).
Most likely, Apple will continue to offer a compatible model of the watch in the existing style, so a customer can choose, let's say a round watch with new bands, or an identical square watch with the same bands, or a thinner square watch with new bands. Or maybe, Apple expects the customer to buy all three, and compatible bands to go with them. Or yes, even models with smart bands -- a choice I see much like LTE, which not everyone is going to want, nor see the benefits of ...
Jony Ive is a watch guy. Typically speaking, Watch guys buy more than one watch, and when they do, they tend to buy them with matching bands, and don't change them, unless they break or wear or out, and even then they tend to replace them with the same type of band they had before, especially when it comes to metal bracelets. So at a certain point, while he got behind the interchangeable bands, something that even watch guys would enjoy doing -- designer interchangable grosgrain bands were hugely popular in the 80s -- most people have specific combinations they typically want to wear. And at some point, just like the grosgrain fad from the 80s, the fad of swapping out bands and having massive band collections will no longer be the motivating factor behind purchasing the watch. If the design gets old looking, or boring, and Apple can't freshen it up without charging those band attachments, then I don't think they will. They'll treat it like any other watch a customer might buy. For the most part, any Apple watch a customer buys today will likely continue to work for years to come, until they get tired of wearing it, or desperately need some new feature it doesn't have. This is just like any watch in a person's collection. So that investment in bands will continue to be useful, likely until the bands themselves wear out, whether the new watch is compatible with them or not. And having multiple Apple Watches will give customers even more choice for the look of their watch, than they already have, likely without giving up too much in the process.