"NFC antennas"!!! I they go the NFC route I'm back into Apple ecosystem and I'll buy this watch and the 5.5 inch iPhone. Otherwise I'll stick to my Android.
Have fun in Android land.
Also, what do you actually use NFC for? Why should I prefer it to Bluetooth 4.0, which is already the de facto standard for connecting with small devices like cycling computers and wearables?
Not keen on the in-strap circuitry part. Samsung rightly got skewered when the first version of their Gear watch had the camera in the strap; being able to replace the strap independently of the watch face is a pretty big deal.
Didn't people say the same thing about the battery and memory when the first iPhone came out and neither was replaceable/extendable? I know I did - but it's really turned out to be a non-issue, or at best a very minor annoyance.
His comment is meaningless because every year is Apple's best product lineup ever. If it wasn't that would imply Apple's products are getting worse.
I dont agree at all with youre way of seeing this. He obviously means they will launch more products than usual, in fact its the best line up he have seen, which means there will be major changes and new products, not minor incremental upgrades like we usually get.
I dont agree at all with youre way of seeing this. He obviously means they will launch more products than usual, in fact its the best line up he have seen, which means there will be major changes and new products, not minor incremental upgrades like we usually get.
I think the comment was definitely meant to make people think this, but I also agree with Ireland that it is carefully worded so that,in retrospect, you can't call him a liar when all your dreams don't come true.
Everything I've seen about this iWatch concept is kludgy. If any design cues in that patent turns up in an actual iWatch, it's doomed.
The more I read about this, the less it looks like an Apple product. There's no reinventing anything here so far. Many people have gotten rid of watches, they aren't going back unless there's a compelling reason. They're not going to carry a phone and wear a watch. And most people who do still wear watches tend to be more interested in the jewelry and status they bring, not whether they can relay a text message from their iPhone.
I don't see using one of these except for sports, and even then it will have to be far less delicate than the iPhone. Waterproof at a minimum. And that's going to cut into the design style for the typical Apple market.
If Apple does this it will sure be interesting to watch. Haha didn't intend that pun but there you go.
Didn't people say the same thing about the battery and memory when the first iPhone came out and neither was replaceable/extendable? I know I did - but it's really turned out to be a non-issue, or at best a very minor annoyance.
Possibly, but a phone's battery is part of its function, whereas a watch strap is both aesthetic and also dictates its comfort. I think making the strap non-replaceable would be seen as a significant failing of any such product.
I didn't carry a phone with me everywhere until the iPhone. This thing will be as much as "watch" as the iPhone is a "phone." In other words it'll be a connected app platform that seemlessly fits into your iOS/Mac OS X device ecosystem that makes everything better.
My question is, how do grab-bag patents like this one work? From the article it sounds like there are tons of different characteristics mentioned, many of which are trivial on their own. So does the patent only protect against someone combining all these things into one device? Or from achieving some "critical mass" of similarity? As others have said, there are already products on the market that have subsets of these features.
Also, what do you actually use NFC for? Why should I prefer it to Bluetooth 4.0, which is already the de facto standard for connecting with small devices like cycling computers and wearables?
Hmm, whilst I agree with your line of questioning, I would disagree with your counterpoint that BT4.0 is already a de facto standard in such things. I agree that it may well go that way, and soon, but right now ANT+ is the only interoperable standard in town for such sensors, and that's using ancient 2.4Ghz RF tech.
What if all along the 'iWatch' has just been the next iPod? The only reason to have a dedicated music player these days is for exercising, since your phone is too bulky. And since you're exercising anyway, why not add bio/health sensors to it, and make it strap to your body. But still call it the iPod.
This definitely makes things more exciting. How timely is it that this gets granted on the day of the earnings call? As someone mentioned this is 3 years in the making so I wouldn't expect this exact representation when they finally do announce. Hopefully it is more advanced with the basis being this patent. Leave everyone else in the dust.
Possibly, but a phone's battery is part of its function, whereas a watch strap is both aesthetic and also dictates its comfort. I think making the strap non-replaceable would be seen as a significant failing of any such product.
You have a point, but I think you're overstating it. Yes it's nice to be able to replace a band when it fails, but 95%+ (maybe 99%) of watch buyers never replace the watch band except in that case. Are there really people who lay down $500+ on a watch and throw away the band it was designed for? Most people who like watches and want different styles simply buy mutiple watches. Personally I would hope that these watches have a reasonably lifespan of 5+ years rather than iPhones that are antiquated in 2 or 3 years. (But that's almost certainly too much to hope for given advances in miniturization, computing power, and networking.)
Hmm, whilst I agree with your line of questioning, I would disagree with your counterpoint that BT4.0 is already a de facto standard in such things. I agree that it may well go that way, and soon, but right now ANT+ is the only interoperable standard in town for such sensors, and that's using ancient 2.4Ghz RF tech.
The market is rapidly moving away from ANT+. The only reason anyone still includes ANT+ antennas is for backwards compatibility. I'm not even aware of anyone who makes an ANT+ dongle for a lightning equipped iPhone.
You have a point, but I think you're overstating it. Yes it's nice to be able to replace a band when it fails, but 95%+ (maybe 99%) of watch buyers never replace the watch band except in that case. Are there really people who lay down $500+ on a watch and throw away the band it was designed for? Most people who like watches and want different styles simply buy mutiple watches. Personally I would hope that these watches have a reasonably lifespan of 5+ years rather than iPhones that are antiquated in 2 or 3 years. (But that's almost certainly too much to hope for given advances in miniturization, computing power, and networking.)
No, but there are people who simply won't buy a watch if it doesn't fit. The strap is a really important part of the sell for any watch. I have a lot of watches (well, say 10-15) and I would like to own more, the limiting factor is finding ones that fit, rather than finding ones you like the look and/or features of. When your choice of smartwatch for an iPhone is going to be restricted to a couple of devices max, you had better make sure that there are a lot of strap options for people to choose from, and that means keeping the tech' out of the straps. Did you pay any close attention to the Gear 2 press photos? None of those watches had a good fit for the ladies (and only the larger wristed males at that), men like me with skinny wrists are not going to enjoy wearing one (nor perhaps will any rear mounted sensors work) if it's just going to spin around on your wrist because the shoulder mounts are too big and bulky like the Gear(s).
The market is rapidly moving away from ANT+. The only reason anyone still includes ANT+ antennas is for backwards compatibility. I'm not even aware of anyone who makes an ANT+ dongle for a lightning equipped iPhone.
For sure it's going that way, as I said. But it's nowhere near close to actually being there yet was my point, let's not be getting ahead of ourselves, taking it from the accessory side first then other than standard heart rate straps etc there are precious few non ANT+ devices for things like power meters and so fort, and those that are around are 1st gen products. It's tipping, but its not tipped. Either way NFC is toast. Apple (and we) dodged a bullet with that tech...
Comments
Have fun in Android land.
Also, what do you actually use NFC for? Why should I prefer it to Bluetooth 4.0, which is already the de facto standard for connecting with small devices like cycling computers and wearables?
Didn't people say the same thing about the battery and memory when the first iPhone came out and neither was replaceable/extendable? I know I did - but it's really turned out to be a non-issue, or at best a very minor annoyance.
His comment is meaningless because every year is Apple's best product lineup ever. If it wasn't that would imply Apple's products are getting worse.
I dont agree at all with youre way of seeing this. He obviously means they will launch more products than usual, in fact its the best line up he have seen, which means there will be major changes and new products, not minor incremental upgrades like we usually get.
A square watch. Ugh.
The moto watch is very good looking indeed.
I think the comment was definitely meant to make people think this, but I also agree with Ireland that it is carefully worded so that,in retrospect, you can't call him a liar when all your dreams don't come true.
The more I read about this, the less it looks like an Apple product. There's no reinventing anything here so far. Many people have gotten rid of watches, they aren't going back unless there's a compelling reason. They're not going to carry a phone and wear a watch. And most people who do still wear watches tend to be more interested in the jewelry and status they bring, not whether they can relay a text message from their iPhone.
I don't see using one of these except for sports, and even then it will have to be far less delicate than the iPhone. Waterproof at a minimum. And that's going to cut into the design style for the typical Apple market.
If Apple does this it will sure be interesting to watch. Haha didn't intend that pun but there you go.
Didn't people say the same thing about the battery and memory when the first iPhone came out and neither was replaceable/extendable? I know I did - but it's really turned out to be a non-issue, or at best a very minor annoyance.
Possibly, but a phone's battery is part of its function, whereas a watch strap is both aesthetic and also dictates its comfort. I think making the strap non-replaceable would be seen as a significant failing of any such product.
I didn't carry a phone with me everywhere until the iPhone. This thing will be as much as "watch" as the iPhone is a "phone." In other words it'll be a connected app platform that seemlessly fits into your iOS/Mac OS X device ecosystem that makes everything better.
My question is, how do grab-bag patents like this one work? From the article it sounds like there are tons of different characteristics mentioned, many of which are trivial on their own. So does the patent only protect against someone combining all these things into one device? Or from achieving some "critical mass" of similarity? As others have said, there are already products on the market that have subsets of these features.
Have fun in Android land.
Also, what do you actually use NFC for? Why should I prefer it to Bluetooth 4.0, which is already the de facto standard for connecting with small devices like cycling computers and wearables?
Hmm, whilst I agree with your line of questioning, I would disagree with your counterpoint that BT4.0 is already a de facto standard in such things. I agree that it may well go that way, and soon, but right now ANT+ is the only interoperable standard in town for such sensors, and that's using ancient 2.4Ghz RF tech.
Gut instinct: Apple calls it iWatch.
What if all along the 'iWatch' has just been the next iPod? The only reason to have a dedicated music player these days is for exercising, since your phone is too bulky. And since you're exercising anyway, why not add bio/health sensors to it, and make it strap to your body. But still call it the iPod.
Possibly, but a phone's battery is part of its function, whereas a watch strap is both aesthetic and also dictates its comfort. I think making the strap non-replaceable would be seen as a significant failing of any such product.
You have a point, but I think you're overstating it. Yes it's nice to be able to replace a band when it fails, but 95%+ (maybe 99%) of watch buyers never replace the watch band except in that case. Are there really people who lay down $500+ on a watch and throw away the band it was designed for? Most people who like watches and want different styles simply buy mutiple watches. Personally I would hope that these watches have a reasonably lifespan of 5+ years rather than iPhones that are antiquated in 2 or 3 years. (But that's almost certainly too much to hope for given advances in miniturization, computing power, and networking.)
The market is rapidly moving away from ANT+. The only reason anyone still includes ANT+ antennas is for backwards compatibility. I'm not even aware of anyone who makes an ANT+ dongle for a lightning equipped iPhone.
You have a point, but I think you're overstating it. Yes it's nice to be able to replace a band when it fails, but 95%+ (maybe 99%) of watch buyers never replace the watch band except in that case. Are there really people who lay down $500+ on a watch and throw away the band it was designed for? Most people who like watches and want different styles simply buy mutiple watches. Personally I would hope that these watches have a reasonably lifespan of 5+ years rather than iPhones that are antiquated in 2 or 3 years. (But that's almost certainly too much to hope for given advances in miniturization, computing power, and networking.)
No, but there are people who simply won't buy a watch if it doesn't fit. The strap is a really important part of the sell for any watch. I have a lot of watches (well, say 10-15) and I would like to own more, the limiting factor is finding ones that fit, rather than finding ones you like the look and/or features of. When your choice of smartwatch for an iPhone is going to be restricted to a couple of devices max, you had better make sure that there are a lot of strap options for people to choose from, and that means keeping the tech' out of the straps. Did you pay any close attention to the Gear 2 press photos? None of those watches had a good fit for the ladies (and only the larger wristed males at that), men like me with skinny wrists are not going to enjoy wearing one (nor perhaps will any rear mounted sensors work) if it's just going to spin around on your wrist because the shoulder mounts are too big and bulky like the Gear(s).
The market is rapidly moving away from ANT+. The only reason anyone still includes ANT+ antennas is for backwards compatibility. I'm not even aware of anyone who makes an ANT+ dongle for a lightning equipped iPhone.
For sure it's going that way, as I said. But it's nowhere near close to actually being there yet was my point, let's not be getting ahead of ourselves, taking it from the accessory side first then other than standard heart rate straps etc there are precious few non ANT+ devices for things like power meters and so fort, and those that are around are 1st gen products. It's tipping, but its not tipped. Either way NFC is toast. Apple (and we) dodged a bullet with that tech...