Apple Ring: Two decades of rumors and speculation about a smart ring
The Apple Ring has been the subject of occasional rumors for close to two decades. Here are the essential rumors and Apple's published research topics about the smart jewelry.
A render of a ring with the Apple logo.
Apple's wearable in its product catalog is the Apple Watch, and it has helped it capitalize in the smartwatch market. But there's always a group of customers who would rather wear something else instead of a watch.
The seeming answer to that is a smart ring, and Apple's not the only one seemingly in the field. The Oura ring has been around for years, offering biological monitoring while being worn around a finger.
Chief electronics rival Samsung is also preparing its own offering in the field. The Galaxy Ring is anticipated to launch later in 2024. In the face of potential competition in the market, there could be increased pressure on Apple to move in with its own offering.
With that prospect on the horizon, this is what the rumor mill has declared about the Apple Ring over time.
An early Apple Ring proposal
One of the earliest examples of the rumor mill at action goes back to 2007, when Yanko Design published a concept image designed by Victor Soto. Referred to as the iRing, the idea consisted of a white or black ring with a blue glowing Apple logo.
A 2007 iRing concept [Yanko Design/Victor Soto]
The concept was that the iRing would work with an iPhone or iPod, providing control of playback and volume control via a touch-sensitive function strip.
The ring would be used with a loop-shaped cradle for recharging, and would theoretically have a battery life of up to two days.
Obviously, the technology of the time made it hard to consider the concept as a real, tangible product. But, as technology miniaturizes, the chance of it eventually becoming a reality has grown.
Supplier tour sparks Apple Ring expectations
An interpretation of the concept by analysts took place in 2013, thanks to a research note from Topeka Capital Markets. The note was more about an Apple-produced television, but a ring became an integral part of it.
At the time, it was explained that the "iRing" would act as a navigation pointer for the television. Motion detection was said to replace some typical remote control functions.
While a television didn't come to pass, we do have Apple TV, albeit without a ring controller. And a screen.
A barrage of Apple Ring patents
One of the oddities of the Apple Ring rumors is that there's proof Apple has at least considered the concept. While it may not have actually produced the hardware, engineers at Apple have put some thought into the possibility.
The evidence of this stems from patents and patent applications, which has seen Apple come up with many different concepts for the device.
An example of an Apple Ring patent image
This ranged from including a compact display on the ring itself to gesture control, and rolling haptics. The patents have also offered the possibility it could be used with the Apple Vision Pro, complete with detecting finger bends.
There's even been the proposal that an "expandable ring device" could be worn in many different ways, including as part of a necklace or a bracelet.
Apple Ring spying claims
One of the more outlandish claims that circulated in 2022 insisted Apple developed a paired wedding ring set. The idea would be that each user would know where the other one was at all times.
Furthermore, they would also know if their partner removed the ring, which could be considered a step towards being unfaithful.
The problem with the rumor is that some people are easily capable of believing it to be true. The same sort of abuse speculated about in the viral social media post was already possible, and didn't need a ring.
There have already been many stories involving AirTags being used for tracking purposes by stalkers. Not to mention the many other trackers and tracking methods available on the market for the purpose.
Of course, a smart ring from Apple could potentially be used for bad purposes. Practically anything could given the motivation or the reasoning.
But, like the anti-stalking measures, it would be expected that Apple would try to maintain user privacy, and work to implement similar tools in a smart ring. That is, if it enabled stalking behavior in some way.
Samsung sparked Apple Ring speculation
After Samsung's early 2024 Unpacked event, which involved a tease of its Galaxy Ring, a report quickly surfaced claiming it was still a possibility for Apple.
"Apple has consistently released smart ring-related patents for several years, so advanced development for commercialization appears to be imminent," alleged insiders told an ETNews report.
Apple was reportedly considering a launch date for the device, though the report stopped short of saying when and how it would launch.
This somewhat tracks, given ETNews doesn't necessarily have the best track record when it comes to predicting future Apple products.
Apple Ring, an on-and-off rumor
The Apple Ring is an unusual rumored item that Apple is seemingly producing. There certainly is evidence, via patent filings, that it has been a consideration for the company, and for quite some time.
However, it's also an item that, despite the evidence, doesn't have any real concrete rumors saying it will be coming out soon, or within years.
It also isn't consistently raised by the rumor mill either. Most stories that AppleInsider has covered about the Apple Ring has been about patent grants and applications, rather than speculation or analyst claims.
With the sheer number of patents involving rings, and the potential of a nascent marketplace, it's a possibility. But, for those 17 years, it's a concept that's always been rumored to be about three or four years away.
We can't close the circle on the Apple Ring today. But neither can we discount it as something that won't ever happen.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
But I can't imagine a time I would want to wear a microchip ring. Absolutely unappealing.
if anybody remembers the TV show “The Prisoner” and the famous line - “I am not a number, I am a free man”, that kind of sums it up.
1. When I put it in fire, markings should appear (in Elvish, or according to what I choose to ‘engrave’ on the Apple Store.
2. I want a tiny speaker in the ring that randomly plays back (once a day, while wearing): “my precious!” or sounds of coughing up hairballs.
Skip anything related to health or iCloud. Just those two please.
I can't imagine a time I would want to wear a ring. I can't stand having any kind of ring on for more than a few minutes.
I think what I really want is a ring like Green Lantern's ring.
By the same measure, when you purchase the Apple Car, you get the Apple Ring thrown in for free.
Let's face it, Cook has kept Apple afloat quite nicely. But the reality is that since Job's passing the only innovative product that Apple has released to date is the Vision Pro. All the others have been upgrades upon upgrades upon upgrades. Forget the watch it's not innovative.
And truth be told, Apple has botched what could have been a multi-billion product had they released it in a smaller form factor without all the bells and whistles at $1500-$2000. Pitching it at $3500 USD is the same mistake when they sold the Gold Apple Watch for some outrageous price. However, they did offer the Apple Watch at a more affordable price range which made it a hit.
The Vision Pro US market has dried up. So now they are offering the Vision Pro around the world. They will sell a few. But not enough to offset the R&D effort and not near enough to move the needle by much when Apple releases their Dec. 2024 numbers.
The moral in this: start small, grab market share, get an audience then slowly increase the features and price to achieve a $3500 price point.
If you already own an Apple Vision Pro 1.0 then you have trade-in value. Right now the only thing you have to trade-in is the shirt on your back. And Apple does not want that!
The Watch isn't innovative? Hmmm... let's see. The wristwatch had been around for over 200 years when Apple introduced theirs in 2014. That gave every other company that ever made watches a two centuries head start on Apple. Apple was selling 0 watches in 2014. But just five years later, the Watch was outselling the entire Swiss watch industry COMBINED which. let's not forget, included mass market brands like Swatch. And, of course, Apple Watch sales left every other watch brand in the world in the dust. So yeah, definitely nothing to see here, nothing "innovative" to explain why Apple's watch upended 200 years of wristwatch history. I guess people just really like the bands? The Watch also created an entirely new product category for Apple under Tim Cook: Wearables. Which leads me to...
Apple AirPods. Yeah, like the Watch, another "nothing burger" created under Cook and released in 2016. It's really a shame that Apple's wireless earbuds and headphones never caught on. They should have listened when people said it was stupid to abandon the headphone jack on iPhone. What can you say? Another big miss in Wearables for Cook, who can't seem to innovate anything under his oversight.
Vision Pro. So, according to your brilliant business mind, "smaller, simpler, cheaper" is the path to success! Well, my friend, both Meta and Microsoft--you've heard of them, right?--have been in the "smaller, simpler, cheaper" headset game for years. So where's the killer product that owns the market? OH... that's right. It doesn't exist. So what happened? Like a lot of people too lazy to actually research what gets reported online, you believe at face value the headlines that proclaim BS like, "Apple Vision Pro sales fall short." If you look at the quotes about Vision Pro from someone like Kuo, an analyst who gets quoted a lot, he has been all over the map in his assessment of Vision Pro. There is no consistency in what he reports, none whatsoever, so there's nothing you can believe. But hey... you'd have to be tracking his quotes to know that. Similarly, there was the "Market consensus says that Vision Pro sales fall short" that made the rounds for a while. Ask yourself: what the hell does "market consensus" even mean? Sure sounds authoritative, but only if you don't peek behind the curtain of nonsense. There was never any "market consensus" about how many Vision Pros Apple would sell. Brokerage houses ranged in estimates from 50,000 to 5 million, with all kinds of numbers in between. So Apple is "failing" vs. a consensus that doesn't even exist.
The truth about Vision Pro is this: instead of introducing another "me. too, mixed reality headset" for the so-called metaverse (remember when that was supposedly the next big thing?), Apple introduced an entirely new computing platform at the price point required to properly execute its vision for the product. Do you really think Apple was caught unaware that a $3500, v1.0 all-new computing platform wasn't going to be a mass market success? I have to assume no one is that stupid. What was important for this first iteration was to showcase the capabilities and possibilities of Vision Pro--which, if you book a free demo session of Vision Pro at your local Apple Store, will become much clearer, even if you, personally, have no need for the product. Sales of Vision Pro have followed the curve you would expect for a very expensive, 1.0 product: very strong sales initially from those who could afford it based on pent-up demand and early adopters followed by what was likely a sharp but entirely expected fall-off. The roll out of Vision Pro was always planned as USA-first, followed by rest of the world later, in stages, and not the insane "Uh, Americans don't want this, let's try to sell it elsewhere" nonsense that you suggest. The complexity of manufacturing Vision Pro has always meant that first year production numbers would be constrained. No surprise that Apple's biggest market, China, was next it line, where Vision Pro is priced even higher than in the US. The truth is that Apple did what it needed to do in Vision Pro 1.0: introduce an entirely new and highly innovative product that performs well and is unlike anything the market has ever seen in headsets. Its success was never going to be determined by v1.0 and Apple has mountains of cash on hand to sustain continued development of the future iterations that will determine if it remains a niche product or finds greater mass market success.
Services: Cook's job as leader of Apple is to innovate new businesses to grow the company, which gets increasingly difficult as Apple grows ever larger. To the small-minded who lack vision, imagination and business sense, "innovation" only counts if it's a new hardware product. And so they stupidly overlook the fact that Cook has created the greatest new "product" and business in Apple's history except for iPhone: the Services category. Services now generates about one-third of all Apple profit, it is a larger and more profitable business on its own than most Fortune 500 companies and it eclipses, by far, the Mac and iPad businesses combined. Its profit margins are also incredibly high. Services has literally been the savior of Apple since iPhone sales started to level off and decline. But yeah, once again, nothing to see here. Cook can't do anything.
Really? Please share with the rest of us who these "many highly-placed folks at Apple" are who said that the Vision Pro was not ready for release. Names please. And please link to publications or sources where we can see those quotes. I'll wait. You do realize that simply because you put something in quotation marks doesn't mean that someone said it, right?
Seeing this, Apple's PR machine swung into full damage control and started telling all and sundry that a good many fortune 500 companies had purchased the device, along with several medical facilities. Well, let's break that down: fortune 500 and medical facilities. The former would not blink at buying several of these at $3500 a pop. They regularly spend thousands of dollars on equipment that gets obsoleted the next year and chucked in the tip. I worked for one, I ought to know. So far as the few stories peppered about how revolutionary the VP in performing micro surgery. Well, again, medical facilities have enormous budgets to throw at equipment at all levels from $10,000 to $10,000,000. The VP would hardly make a dent.
My comments throughout was that if Apple had intended for the VP to become a hit with prosumers it failed and failed miserably. Peppering the internet with stories about how fortune 500 companies and medical facilities bought it and marvelled at it hardly makes the case, other than Apple's well-oiled PR machine is doing the best it can with a poorly conceived release.
My contention and I stand behind it 100% is that Cook wanted a headline grabbing product after the dismal demise of the Apple Car and pushed it out the lab before it was ready for primetime. No doubt, Apple has the money and resources to make lemonade out of lemons. Come mid-2025 and possibly early 2026 we will see a new and improved Vision Standard at the affordable range existing side-by-side with Vision Pro for companies and medical establishments.
The problem with that is that people have soured on this product, like they have on Apple Maps and the old saying applies: 'you only get one chance to make a great impression.
Added to that, I am sure you have read that Apple has reaped a great many benefits from the failed launch of the Apple Car. I would luv to know what benefits, other than a tax deduction and how to not build a car when you are not in that space. Period.