"The watch industry" - is that the one where people wear timepieces on their wrist which are nothing to do with telling the time but everything to do with displaying your wealth and making a statement?
No company with Apple's tech savvy or cachet, outside the watch industry, has ever been expected to make a "watch" before. So far (ignoring the strange items made by Samsung and Google) nobody has made something for your wrist that isn't a watch. People will not ditch their Rolex or other luxury fashion marques mentioned in earlier posts for an Apple watch unless Apple is looking to provide something that fits on your wrist (?) but isn't a watch. They would need to appeal to a completely different market. I expect that Apple's product may not need to be Swiss Made if they are not entering the watch industry. They may well be creating a new industry that doesn't currently exist. They have done it before ...
Yes... it's called the wearable tech industry... and it is not only about a "watch face".
While I think Apple may also design a "watch face", I personally believe it will be the watch band and clasp mechanism that will change the game. Using it's expertise in materials, Apple will use an innovative clasp mechanism constructed of Liquid Metal, and a curved strip of Sapphire glass over a roughly 14-18mm x 45-50mm x 3mm housing that contains all of the sensors and chips necessary.
Using energy efficient Bluetooth 4.0 and power-sipping sensors, including the chosen screen tech, the "watch band" will be powered by human heat and will not need a battery.
Getting assorted Swiss watchmakers on board is more about giving them the opportunity to integrate the "band" than to take over the "face", which I agree is so much of a fashion statement that none of the new hires at Apple, nor Jony Ive would be fool enough to try and supplant. However, the underside of any watch is up for grabs, and could very well be powered by Apple-tech and be integrated fashionably, advantageously, health-consciously... and be a user-friendly accessory to any iPhone or iOS device... even including your Mac(!)
- The Watch = (face including the sides of the band) = any watch design or maker your heart desires... might I add... both old AND new.
- The Pulse = tech powered by Apple and (your) life... literally. :smokey:
I've not enough time to go into detail (re: my ideas) of the functionality and additional features a watch band affords the iOS eco-system. But make no mistake... it IS about the Apple and iOS eco-system(s), and less about a "stupid" tech gadget such as those that have been shown to the world previously from Pebble, Android Wear, or worst "guess" of all to try and beat Apple to market based on a rumored product... that "Gear" thing(!) :no:
Getting bored reading all these rumors that seem to change from day to day. It's all he said she said and none of these journalists know anything. I just want to see what Apple is making already. I'll wait for the real thing instead of these rumors of $10000 apple luxury watches or glowing apple logos. I guarantee both of those are way off
[SIZE=26px]Looking at the iTime Smart Watch design ...[/SIZE]
>>>> multiple pictures of some pretty neat watch faces and ideas <<<<
See my post below yours: an iWatch... as in "iWatch Your Life" band... could be used with any of these.
Most important is that it integrates with any iOS device and has it's own app. Personally I think it would be stupid though.
Oh... and just because I'm excited about a wrist-band iWatch... once again, that doesn't exclude Jony Ive or any of his designer friends from making a modern, stylish "time-piece" or connecting bands. In fact, I think it would be opening the door to all kinds of cool designs for young, old, classic, Fashionistas... as well as price points.
My whole premise is a product that makes the iPhone/iOS eco-system... and even OSX Macs... more "sticky-tech" than they already are.
*** Idea about security: not only 2-point, but now 3 point. Phones get lost, laid down and forgotten (or swiped)... every day. An emergency low-powered wifi chip in the iWatch band can not only be used as a 911, but also to lock your iPhone (or MBA, iMac) if you are not within BT distance. This is also a third identifier for secure payments.
The list goes on and on what an iWatch can possibly do... but most importantly... it watches over your LIFE. Both physically (health-wise)... but also the gadgets you have around you that hold your work, dear memories and your connections to the world.
Getting bored reading all these rumors that seem to change from day to day. It's all he said she said and none of these journalists know anything. I just want to see what Apple is making already. I'll wait for the real thing instead of these rumors of $10000 apple luxury watches or glowing apple logos. I guarantee both of those are way off
Then don't read the rumors or participate. My belief is that forums are for intelligent discourse on a subject, dreamscaping, or LOLZ.
Taking the time to state your boredom over something that you have absolute control of to do... or not to do... is neither of the above and just plain pathetic. Man up... take control of your life and your bodily actions. Don't let a measly headline sway you into temptation to be miserably bored and depressed... :no:
*** A thought... rather a question came to mind will reading your last sentence... as it pertains to my thesis above what I think an iWatch "could" be.
Q: How much is your life worth... literally?
And technically considering what's on your Apple devices, would $200, $300... $500(?) be an acceptable price to pay to "lock it all down", as well as be forewarned of health implications and/or automatically call for emergency personnel if you didn't take the warnings seriously... or you were just plain in need of police assistance?
Using your forum name, I would expect you to be the adventurous type. But going down the Road of Exaggerated Claims is rather childish, because no one has said anything about $10k Apple luxware or "glowing Apple logos". Although fitting to your name, the CC I remember reading about in school was rather undisciplined, impetuous, and succumbed to depressions and pouting all too often. Welcome to India...;)
If these rumors are true, Apple is executing this smartwatch launch very well. Samsung and others only sold their wearables at electronics stores and failed to convince the bulk of consumers who are used to regular watches.
If I were to guess Apple is borrowing a few tips from Angela Ahrendts' retail playbook. Well done.
This news fits well with what I've been posting on this subject:
In the fullness of time, all of the traditional watch makers are vulnerable. The utility of a watch as a timepiece has already been wholly disrupted by technology. Gone are the days when people check the time 100 times a day; smartphones with reminders and appointment calendars inform us of our time-based commitments, and these devices are looked at for a variety of purposes throughout the day, with the time ever present on screen. Smart watches will first supplant ordinary watches as a more functional fashion accessory. And with smart watch functionality soon becoming expected, luxury smart watches will come on the scene where they will displace those luxury watches whose functionality extends only to telling the time and a few other time-based functions. A technology ecosystem will be a critical part of the picture, and this is something none of the existing luxury watchmakers can bring to the market in any meaningful way compared with the technology giants currently moving into this space. Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
Advice to the luxury watch makers: partner with tech giants, if they'll even have you.
Actually, I like my post of a week or two ago better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac
I still cannot believe that there will be a single "iWatch". As I go over all the stuff I've read, I can count at least three possible models: 1) a fitness model, 2) a health monitor (maybe even two, specialized for cardiac problems and for diabetes), and 3) a luxury model (think real Swiss movement with a subtle notification function - maybe not a watch per se but a technology to be licensed).
At the risk of being accused of massive hubris, the recent iWatch/iTime patent article convinced me even more that I might be on the right track. Could the "specialty" devices be several interchangeable modules for health/fitness purposes, paired up with a line of different bands (e.g. leather, metal, plastic)? That the tech will mainly be in the band rather than concentrated in the body of the watch hints at the possibility of having true Swiss movement time-pieces. A technology that can be licensed means Apple doesn't have to design and build its own watch to play in the luxury market. If the technology turns out to be a real game-changer, it would not be impossible to think names such as Rolex or Tag-Heuer to someday be licensees.
Rolex unless something happened overnight is privately held (it's a Swiss thing). They are not a Swatch Subsidiary/brand (not that I'd care, but my watch collection consists of 3 Rolexes my dad gave me... He being an US Air Force guy, Rolex was officer bling in the 50's ;-)
From Wikipedia.... these are the Swatch Family of watches
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);margin-bottom:.5em;margin-top:.5em;">Prestige and Luxury Range</p>
I had no clue Swatch had grown like this. Thanks for the education! I realize I haven't looked at watches or even thought about them for 35 years. A girl friend bought me a Rolex on a visit to Andorra back then and I've worn it ever since.
Sorry to be late to the thread ... if this has been said, my bad, I haven't read through the posts yet.
It all makes me wonder if Apple are making an intelligent 'watch strap' not a watch per se! Or some attachment to an existing watch at least. I can't see how but nor can I see why Apple would be talking to other watch makes ... assuming the rumor is true.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again (and now with the denial by Swatch, even more assuredly): "Just because something makes sense does not make it SO."
Well maybe they are doing the car play approach, develop a set of tool and API's and work with the world manufactures to implement them into their designs. This way Apple does not need to be a watch expert but work with the experts and provide them the tools which allows the watch to work with apple ecosystem and product offering.
This could be a much better approach than them making a watch, they could do their own design but they may allow everyone else to do the heavy lifting.
Well, Apple still doesn't make a lot of key components for existing products (LCD displays for example) If their effort (or one of the their efforts) is to marry a high tech digital display with a quality analog watch, they would need to partner.
If the watch crystal could be invisible to show a traditional, real watch face, and then turn opaque with a full color screen overlay, it would be incredibly interesting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang
Well, Apple still doesn't make a lot of key components for existing products (LCD displays for example) If their effort (or one of the their efforts) is to marry a high tech digital display with a quality analog watch, they would need to partner.
If the watch crystal could be invisible to show a traditional, real watch face, and then turn opaque with a full color screen overlay, it would be incredibly interesting...
Well maybe is doing the car play approach, develop a set of tool and they work with the world manufactures to implement them into their designs. This way Apple does not need to be a watch expert but work with the experts and provide them the tools which allows the watch to work with apple ecosystem and product offering.
This could be a much better approach than them making a watch, they could do their own design but they may allow everyone else to do the heavy lifting.
I think someone earlier on this thread suggested the same thing. There is a certain logic to doing a carplay approach. Like you say, Apple doesn't need to be a watch (or car) manufacturer, and can extend the eco-system through many more outlets than it otherwise could do on its own. Not to say that Apple couldn't still offer its own iWatch (or whatever the "wearable" would be called), but this also provides a way to bring the technology to market in a variety of styles that don't necessarily line up with the Apple design aesthetic (personally, I do prefer minimalism and would hope that Apple does indeed offer its own product).
edit: Never mind the fact that the other AI article says Swatch is denying any involvement...
There are some really informative comments following the article, especially from Dick Applebaum.
I was reading up on SOS (Silicon on Sapphire) and one of the current leading companies using this technique is a company called, Peregrine Semiconductor in San Diego. In fact the company was tapped for producing an antenna switch in the iPhone 4S' dual-antenna design. However it was dropped with the release of the 5C and 5S, causing their stock to plunge.
Possibly a good opportunity for Apple to acquire them?
======
After reading a little about SOS, and taking into account all the sapphire Apple is buying up, I'm really beginning to wonder if Apple is producing the A8 using an SOS fabrication process? It seems that very few others make use of it in microprocessors because it is considered to be fairly expensive (the sapphire). But the properties of using such a process would allow processors to use a lot less power and run much, much faster.
A8 with SOS? That would surprise me. Maybe A9 or later...
If the Luxvue micro-LED tech is far enough along in its development cycle, it sure would help make a splash if it showed up in an Apple wearable.
I think micro LED has a better chance of being used sooner, but you never know!
I don't think this is that far fetched. A lot of watch companies buy their "movements" (the actual internal workings of the watch) from other suppliers and then put the movement into their own case/band.
The iWatch could be nothing more than a movement that Apple makes available which has the processor, circuitry and display (perhaps a couple basic sizes) that watch companies then put into their own custom case/band.
I simply don't think a standard one-size-fits-all iWatch would take off. There's a reason why there are literally thousands of watch styles - people like to have choice. Your watch reflects your style as much as it's used to tell time.
Having an Apple movement would mean that the functionality of every iWatch would be consistent and under Apple control while still allowing watch makers the freedom to continue making a wide variety of styles.
I agree, though I'd take it further: Several things have made me doubt the existence of an "iWatch" at all. The size of the display (too small), the life of the battery (too short) and the style choices (too few) for an expensive item in a style-led market. Will people give up the fashion/lifestyle/wealth statement that these pricey baubles apparently represent? Then there's the added-value over the iPhone that's just a small pull-out-of-pocket away; I can't see who's going to buy it beyond the narrow techno community. But if you consider it as most likely a set of sensors and a very sub-functional (compared to the iPhone's touchscreen) set of controls/alerts...
So suppose it's not a complete iWatch at all, as you said. Suppose it's more like CarPlay, where GM, or Ford, or BMW make the 'carrier' to an appropriate price/style etc point and Apple adds the smarts? The watch, and its bracelet, can include biometric sensors plus basic iPhone controls including a vibrate or similar alert (maybe Siri too though I'm not sure about the Dick Tracey talk-to-the-wrist bit personally); these all use Bluetooth LE occasionally so don't make big demands on the battery. But what if it has no display either (*shock*), the battery life issues mostly disappear, the watch part has traditional physical hands and/or a low power monochrome LCD allowing all the current style choices. So Apple's contribution looks like a high functionality, heavily integrated power-sipping SoC - which they're getting good at. The loss is those functions that are worth doing on a tiny display rather than making the effort of getting your phone out. Are there really lots of those?
This interpretation has the ability to sell to most of the (expensive) watch-buying community, solves the market access and breadth of choice issues and puts Apple in the position of dominating the first-generation of smart wrists.
Comments
Yes... it's called the wearable tech industry... and it is not only about a "watch face".
While I think Apple may also design a "watch face", I personally believe it will be the watch band and clasp mechanism that will change the game. Using it's expertise in materials, Apple will use an innovative clasp mechanism constructed of Liquid Metal, and a curved strip of Sapphire glass over a roughly 14-18mm x 45-50mm x 3mm housing that contains all of the sensors and chips necessary.
Using energy efficient Bluetooth 4.0 and power-sipping sensors, including the chosen screen tech, the "watch band" will be powered by human heat and will not need a battery.
Forbes 2010 Article "Turning Body Heat Into Electricity"
Gizmag... also from 2010 "Researchers harness heat to power electronics"
Getting assorted Swiss watchmakers on board is more about giving them the opportunity to integrate the "band" than to take over the "face", which I agree is so much of a fashion statement that none of the new hires at Apple, nor Jony Ive would be fool enough to try and supplant. However, the underside of any watch is up for grabs, and could very well be powered by Apple-tech and be integrated fashionably, advantageously, health-consciously... and be a user-friendly accessory to any iPhone or iOS device... even including your Mac(!)
- The Watch = (face including the sides of the band) = any watch design or maker your heart desires... might I add... both old AND new.
- The Pulse = tech powered by Apple and (your) life... literally. :smokey:
I've not enough time to go into detail (re: my ideas) of the functionality and additional features a watch band affords the iOS eco-system. But make no mistake... it IS about the Apple and iOS eco-system(s), and less about a "stupid" tech gadget such as those that have been shown to the world previously from Pebble, Android Wear, or worst "guess" of all to try and beat Apple to market based on a rumored product... that "Gear" thing(!) :no:
See my post below yours: an iWatch... as in "iWatch Your Life" band... could be used with any of these.
Most important is that it integrates with any iOS device and has it's own app. Personally I think it would be stupid though.
Oh... and just because I'm excited about a wrist-band iWatch... once again, that doesn't exclude Jony Ive or any of his designer friends from making a modern, stylish "time-piece" or connecting bands. In fact, I think it would be opening the door to all kinds of cool designs for young, old, classic, Fashionistas... as well as price points.
My whole premise is a product that makes the iPhone/iOS eco-system... and even OSX Macs... more "sticky-tech" than they already are.
*** Idea about security: not only 2-point, but now 3 point. Phones get lost, laid down and forgotten (or swiped)... every day. An emergency low-powered wifi chip in the iWatch band can not only be used as a 911, but also to lock your iPhone (or MBA, iMac) if you are not within BT distance. This is also a third identifier for secure payments.
The list goes on and on what an iWatch can possibly do... but most importantly... it watches over your LIFE. Both physically (health-wise)... but also the gadgets you have around you that hold your work, dear memories and your connections to the world.
Then don't read the rumors or participate. My belief is that forums are for intelligent discourse on a subject, dreamscaping, or LOLZ.
Taking the time to state your boredom over something that you have absolute control of to do... or not to do... is neither of the above and just plain pathetic. Man up... take control of your life and your bodily actions. Don't let a measly headline sway you into temptation to be miserably bored and depressed... :no:
*** A thought... rather a question came to mind will reading your last sentence... as it pertains to my thesis above what I think an iWatch "could" be.
Q: How much is your life worth... literally?
And technically considering what's on your Apple devices, would $200, $300... $500(?) be an acceptable price to pay to "lock it all down", as well as be forewarned of health implications and/or automatically call for emergency personnel if you didn't take the warnings seriously... or you were just plain in need of police assistance?
Using your forum name, I would expect you to be the adventurous type. But going down the Road of Exaggerated Claims is rather childish, because no one has said anything about $10k Apple luxware or "glowing Apple logos". Although fitting to your name, the CC I remember reading about in school was rather undisciplined, impetuous, and succumbed to depressions and pouting all too often. Welcome to India...;)
But please, do not make it a skeuomorph. That would be fun for five minutes and then look very old. I don't think Apple would but I'm just sayin'.
Why are you are "just saying'"?
If I were to guess Apple is borrowing a few tips from Angela Ahrendts' retail playbook. Well done.
would be nice to have mechanical hour/minute hands for when the battery runs out.
This news fits well with what I've been posting on this subject:
In the fullness of time, all of the traditional watch makers are vulnerable. The utility of a watch as a timepiece has already been wholly disrupted by technology. Gone are the days when people check the time 100 times a day; smartphones with reminders and appointment calendars inform us of our time-based commitments, and these devices are looked at for a variety of purposes throughout the day, with the time ever present on screen. Smart watches will first supplant ordinary watches as a more functional fashion accessory. And with smart watch functionality soon becoming expected, luxury smart watches will come on the scene where they will displace those luxury watches whose functionality extends only to telling the time and a few other time-based functions. A technology ecosystem will be a critical part of the picture, and this is something none of the existing luxury watchmakers can bring to the market in any meaningful way compared with the technology giants currently moving into this space. Within 10 years, the notion of a luxury watch will be synonymous with luxury smart watch and the Rolexes of the world will be on the path to extinction.
Advice to the luxury watch makers: partner with tech giants, if they'll even have you.
Quote:
I still cannot believe that there will be a single "iWatch". As I go over all the stuff I've read, I can count at least three possible models: 1) a fitness model, 2) a health monitor (maybe even two, specialized for cardiac problems and for diabetes), and 3) a luxury model (think real Swiss movement with a subtle notification function - maybe not a watch per se but a technology to be licensed).
I had no clue Swatch had grown like this. Thanks for the education! I realize I haven't looked at watches or even thought about them for 35 years. A girl friend bought me a Rolex on a visit to Andorra back then and I've worn it ever since.
It all makes me wonder if Apple are making an intelligent 'watch strap' not a watch per se! Or some attachment to an existing watch at least. I can't see how but nor can I see why Apple would be talking to other watch makes ... assuming the rumor is true.
This would make a lot of sense.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again (and now with the denial by Swatch, even more assuredly): "Just because something makes sense does not make it SO."
Well maybe they are doing the car play approach, develop a set of tool and API's and work with the world manufactures to implement them into their designs. This way Apple does not need to be a watch expert but work with the experts and provide them the tools which allows the watch to work with apple ecosystem and product offering.
This could be a much better approach than them making a watch, they could do their own design but they may allow everyone else to do the heavy lifting.
Well, Apple still doesn't make a lot of key components for existing products (LCD displays for example) If their effort (or one of the their efforts) is to marry a high tech digital display with a quality analog watch, they would need to partner.
If the watch crystal could be invisible to show a traditional, real watch face, and then turn opaque with a full color screen overlay, it would be incredibly interesting...
Well, Apple still doesn't make a lot of key components for existing products (LCD displays for example) If their effort (or one of the their efforts) is to marry a high tech digital display with a quality analog watch, they would need to partner.
If the watch crystal could be invisible to show a traditional, real watch face, and then turn opaque with a full color screen overlay, it would be incredibly interesting...
Have you seen this?
Well maybe is doing the car play approach, develop a set of tool and they work with the world manufactures to implement them into their designs. This way Apple does not need to be a watch expert but work with the experts and provide them the tools which allows the watch to work with apple ecosystem and product offering.
This could be a much better approach than them making a watch, they could do their own design but they may allow everyone else to do the heavy lifting.
I think someone earlier on this thread suggested the same thing. There is a certain logic to doing a carplay approach. Like you say, Apple doesn't need to be a watch (or car) manufacturer, and can extend the eco-system through many more outlets than it otherwise could do on its own. Not to say that Apple couldn't still offer its own iWatch (or whatever the "wearable" would be called), but this also provides a way to bring the technology to market in a variety of styles that don't necessarily line up with the Apple design aesthetic (personally, I do prefer minimalism and would hope that Apple does indeed offer its own product).
edit: Never mind the fact that the other AI article says Swatch is denying any involvement...
Ah yes, Luxvue. Here is the AI article:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/02/apple-acquires-luxvue-a-power-efficient-micro-led-maker---report
There are some really informative comments following the article, especially from Dick Applebaum.
I was reading up on SOS (Silicon on Sapphire) and one of the current leading companies using this technique is a company called, Peregrine Semiconductor in San Diego. In fact the company was tapped for producing an antenna switch in the iPhone 4S' dual-antenna design. However it was dropped with the release of the 5C and 5S, causing their stock to plunge.
Possibly a good opportunity for Apple to acquire them?
======
After reading a little about SOS, and taking into account all the sapphire Apple is buying up, I'm really beginning to wonder if Apple is producing the A8 using an SOS fabrication process? It seems that very few others make use of it in microprocessors because it is considered to be fairly expensive (the sapphire). But the properties of using such a process would allow processors to use a lot less power and run much, much faster.
A8 with SOS? That would surprise me. Maybe A9 or later...
If the Luxvue micro-LED tech is far enough along in its development cycle, it sure would help make a splash if it showed up in an Apple wearable.
I think micro LED has a better chance of being used sooner, but you never know!
I don't think this is that far fetched. A lot of watch companies buy their "movements" (the actual internal workings of the watch) from other suppliers and then put the movement into their own case/band.
The iWatch could be nothing more than a movement that Apple makes available which has the processor, circuitry and display (perhaps a couple basic sizes) that watch companies then put into their own custom case/band.
I simply don't think a standard one-size-fits-all iWatch would take off. There's a reason why there are literally thousands of watch styles - people like to have choice. Your watch reflects your style as much as it's used to tell time.
Having an Apple movement would mean that the functionality of every iWatch would be consistent and under Apple control while still allowing watch makers the freedom to continue making a wide variety of styles.
I agree, though I'd take it further: Several things have made me doubt the existence of an "iWatch" at all. The size of the display (too small), the life of the battery (too short) and the style choices (too few) for an expensive item in a style-led market. Will people give up the fashion/lifestyle/wealth statement that these pricey baubles apparently represent? Then there's the added-value over the iPhone that's just a small pull-out-of-pocket away; I can't see who's going to buy it beyond the narrow techno community. But if you consider it as most likely a set of sensors and a very sub-functional (compared to the iPhone's touchscreen) set of controls/alerts...
So suppose it's not a complete iWatch at all, as you said. Suppose it's more like CarPlay, where GM, or Ford, or BMW make the 'carrier' to an appropriate price/style etc point and Apple adds the smarts? The watch, and its bracelet, can include biometric sensors plus basic iPhone controls including a vibrate or similar alert (maybe Siri too though I'm not sure about the Dick Tracey talk-to-the-wrist bit personally); these all use Bluetooth LE occasionally so don't make big demands on the battery. But what if it has no display either (*shock*), the battery life issues mostly disappear, the watch part has traditional physical hands and/or a low power monochrome LCD allowing all the current style choices. So Apple's contribution looks like a high functionality, heavily integrated power-sipping SoC - which they're getting good at. The loss is those functions that are worth doing on a tiny display rather than making the effort of getting your phone out. Are there really lots of those?
This interpretation has the ability to sell to most of the (expensive) watch-buying community, solves the market access and breadth of choice issues and puts Apple in the position of dominating the first-generation of smart wrists.