On-again off-again: Apple Ring project may not be dead
The long-rumored Apple Ring continues to generate buzz as industry insiders speculate on its potential to reshape health tech, despite uncertainty around its release.
Samsung's Galaxy Ring
Wearable technology has evolved rapidly, with smartwatches and fitness trackers leading the charge. Both Samsung and Apple are now delving into more discrete, ring-style wearables, which offer a more subtle and comfortable way to gather health data compared to traditional wrist-worn devices.
Samsung may release its Galaxy Ring 2 soon, while Apple explores not just rings but also band and glasses-based wearables.
According to a recent report, Samsung's Galaxy Ring 2 could reach the market earlier than expected, featuring a slimmer design, enhanced battery life, and possibly new health and connectivity functions. The Naver blog "yeux1122" has had accurate leaks, but as with any leaker, there are misses too.
The Galaxy Ring series follows the trend of creating multifunctional wearables that offer health metrics and data tracking without the bulk of a wristband. A smaller, more battery-efficient design appeals to users looking for wearable tech that's comfortable and lasts all day.
While Apple was reportedly developing a smart ring, Mark Gurman recently suggested the project may be dead. However, some analysts believe Apple is still pursuing the concept and predict it could launch as early as 2026.
Leaker yeux1122 claims that Apple is still developing a ring-type wearable, and recent reports indicate attempts to develop wearable devices in band and smart glass formats. Although Apple Vision Pro has already been launched, it could hint to a rumored lower-cost device.
Apple's emphasis on seamless device integration could reflect an effort to develop a holistic approach to health and lifestyle tech for users.
Apple's smart ring idea
Wearable technology is increasingly valued for health monitoring and data-driven fitness insights. Both Samsung and Apple have pursued these priorities with their smartwatches.
However, a shift to smaller, ring-shaped devices could be a strategic move to capture a new subset of users who prioritize subtlety, comfort, and all-day wearability. Being more discrete, rings offer a less intrusive way to gather health data, from heart rate to sleep monitoring.
Samsung's Galaxy Ring offers a first-mover advantage, but Apple's track record shows that a later release can succeed. Apple's extensive patents cover features like gesture control and biometric tracking.
Though rumors are speculative, Apple's calculated approach could refine its ring device into a powerful, well-integrated addition to its lineup, positioning it firmly in this emerging category.
Industry analysts remain divided on the likelihood of an Apple Ring launch. Some, like Ben Wood of CCS Insight, argue that a ring could align well with Apple's health-focused ecosystem and forecast a potential release as early as 2026.
Still, like Gurman, others remain skeptical. The questioners point to a history of Apple patents that never translated into consumer products.
As a result, opinions on the Apple Ring vary widely, reflecting both optimism for a health-centric device and caution due to market and technical challenges.
Rumor Score: Possible
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
I would be shocked if we don't see an Apple Ring by end of '25. Why? Tim Cook has had enormous success iterating on the same product: 7 different iPhone models in the current lineup, 6 iPads, 5 Apple Watch lines, 4 AirPods lines, etc. So think of an Apple Ring as an iteration of Apple Watch, stripped down to its health and fitness tracking functions. Who is this for? The huge market of people, including those in the Apple user base, who like the health and fitness tracking features but will never buy an Apple Watch because they prefer a traditional wristwatch. How do you think traditional wristwatch companies are staying in business? It's still a very big market, especially in higher income households. The Ring makes so much business sense you have to wonder why we don't already have one from Apple. I suspect miniaturization of Watch health and fitness functionality into a ring form factor, with enough battery to last through a day may be easier said than done. And I'm sure Apple wouldn't want the Ring to be a lesser or worse version of those tracking features. In fact, knowing Apple, it might also want to give the Ring some exclusive tracking features, the better to sell you both the Watch and the Ring.
- Apple already has a cash cow with the iPhones, wearables and Macs, not to mention the services.
- Apple has been rumoured to look at a foldable. Doubt if we will ever see that. The Samsung Fold is a paperweight collecting dust at the retailers that I visit regularly.
- Apple Watch is a huge success. Creating a product that delivers the health/functionality in a smaller form factor may/may not entice buyers away from the Watch to the Ring.
- After the Vision Pro & the Apple Car disasters Apple is gun shy about spending oodles of $ on a product that may steal market share from the Watch.
What's the use case for Apple? That's the many millions dollar question. Isn't it? Oura and the other companies that own the Ring market are a one-trick pony.My suggestion would be to revisit the Apple Car. Rename it the Apple Car Software Division and sell the package to any EV manufacturer- other than Chinese - who needs the software to drive the car. Remember BEV cars have no engine just a battery. That's the guts and Apple was on track to deliver the software and then they got cold feet and gave us the Vision Pro answer a question no one ever asked.
I’d much prefer to wear a very nice watch day to day and only use my Apple Watch when I workout like I did in my Garmin days.
the AW is just too clunky to be comfortable (relatively speaking) and the dark screen when not actively being looked at is unattractive (again, relatively)
1. The idea that any for-profit company would not develop and release a new product because it already has "enough" successful products is utter nonsense from a business perspective.
2. What does Apple looking into foldables have to do with anything? Again, Apple is perfectly capable of many multiple projects at the same time.
3. Yes, Apple Watch is a huge success. The Ring appeals to a large market of buyers that Watch doesn't reach: people who wear traditional wristwatches but are interested in health and fitness tracking. No cannibalizing Watch sales, either, because Watch offers many features that wouldn't be available on the Ring--the most obvious of which is that buyers of the Watch use it as their watch.
4. Vision Pro isn't a disaster by any reliable metric, but you'd have to know what those reliable metrics are to understand. I'm not going to offer remedial education here. Suggest you read Tim Cook's recent interview in the Wall Street Journal as a start. Suffice to say that Vision Pro will continue to be developed and will be in the Apple lineup for years to come. Apple Car also wasn't a disaster: it made total sense for Apple to research and attempt to develop a car of its own, and it also made complete sense to pull the plug on the project when Apple could foresee no sufficiently profitable way forward. Evidence of that can be seen in how various EV companies have either folded or are struggling, Ford and GM have seriously curtailed EV production, and the Chinese EV competition is absolutely brutal globally--we don't see them in the U.S. because they're essentially banned. Fun fact: while Cook gets roasted for "failing" to create "the next Tesla," he was busy during that same time period developing the Services division, which now has annual gross revenue that exceeds Tesla, plus profitability and growth that leave Tesla in the dust. If you care about those things--gross revenue, growth and profitability--Services turns out to be a bigger and far more successful company than Tesla.
What's the use case for Apple isn't even a question. The term "use case" applies to how a product can be used by buyers -- not to the company that manufactures the product. Maybe you meant to ask why the Ring makes sense for Apple? Easy answer: because health and fitness have become a core focus of the company and its customer base, and the Ring would allow Apple to offer its health and fitness tracking features to the large potential buyer pool of traditional watch wearers that it can't and won't reach with Apple Watch. It is a strategy Apple has pursued to great success across other product lines. Why did Apple introduce the Ultra when it already had a full line of watches? Simple: to target the large market of sports/adventure watch buyers that it wasn't reaching with the regular Apple Watch.
Incidentally 'use-case' is when a company considers a product, i.e. if we spend money on developing this, who and why is anyone likely to need, ergo buy it?
The one item that I will address, because you are clearly ignorant of that fact, is why Cook chose to be interviewed by WSJ?
Easy answer: a month earlier the WSJ wrote in its technical column the following damning line: The Apple Vision Pro is a nice product but nobody wants it.
Your assumption based on nothing more than your bloated opinion is that the Apple Vision Pro will long live in the Apple catalogue. Wrong! Apple is already massively scaling back it's development and marketing wondering how they can turn around this Titanic. The thinking going: having learnt from the Apple Car fiasco, it is best to not sink billions into a fruitless project - better to let it bleed to death.
A great many executives and engineers at Apple were strongly against releasing this product. And for good reason.
Tim Cook pushed it out the door to divert attention away from the sting of the Apple Car disaster.
You are perhaps one of the people in the single-digits on this planet who doesn't believe that scuttling a project after nearly a decade and wasting billions is a win. Sad.
The companies suffering disasters in the EV business are the companies that forged ahead with making EVs: Fiskar is already out of business, Lucid will not even make 9,000 cars for all of 2024 and will sell far fewer than that; Rivian LOSES $33,000 on every car it sells; Volvo dumped most of Polestar: Ford and GM reversed course on bullish EV plans after suffering massive losses in that sector of their business. Meanwhile Apple, which remains the world's second most valuable company, wrote off what amounts to lunch money for the company rather than forging ahead to a dead end, money losing future in EVs. You know how investors responded to this so-called "disaster" of Apple pulling the plug on further car development? They bid up the share price to an all-time high since that announcement. As an investor in Apple, I'll take more "disasters" like that, please!
Just my opinion. I am a mostly dumb.