I think the creepy factor will keep it off the watch for a little longer. Blackberry used to have a shutter sound when you took a picture that couldn't be disabled to help thwart secret picture takers, but now people just expect that if someone is holding a phone they could be taking a picture.
I think that resting my wrist on a table with the watch looking up at my face is a comfortable position. However you may end up with a lot of booger selfie videos.
I would say that the #1 obstacle is fitting picture in picture on that tiny screen. A camera will come to the watch, its the natural progression, but two-way video needs to be rethought before implementation.
If anyone has tried to play some of the Apple Watch games your arm starts to ache after about 30 seconds so there is no way you could hold a significant call on FaceTime, especially when you include the time taken to connect.
Why is it being assumed that anyone would want to do anything significant on an ?Watch, phone call, FaceTime, text, game, et al.?
FaceTime would be included for the same reasons they allow phone calls to be received and made -- not so you can chat for an hour with your Aunt Martha -- there's only 3 hours of continuous talk time on the watch. It's there for one reason-- convenience. And nothing's more convenient than answering a FaceTime call without having to dig out your phone to do it, especially given the connect time. How many FaceTime calls have I missed because I couldn't get to my phone in time? Most of my FaceTime calls only last :30 anyway, and if I need longer, I hand it off to the phone, or call someone back when there's a better time to chat, but at least you can take the call. As it is, I have to hold my iPhone up to my Face, as well as the iPad which is even worse, so how is holding up the watch any bigger an issue? Moreover there's no reason to hold your arm up at all, most people look down at their devices anyway, no different with FaceTime. So this is the least compelling argument against this of all.
At least the article didn't claim there won't be a camera at all. Considering the chief benefit of the watch is convenience and leaving ones iPhone in their pocket, as well as Apple's marketing efforts toward the selfie crowd with the iPhone, it makes perfect sense they'd want to get a camera into the watch as quickly as possible. They probably need to add something new and exciting to market anyway, rather than just a processor bump.. Will it be watch 2.0? Who knows, but its coming. And trying to compare this as similar to the Google glass is dead in the water -- the Google glass camera was pointed directly at whatever the user was looking at with no way to know if it was recording. It would be pretty obvious if someone was taking a picture with the watch, or with a mobile phone for that matter. So no more creepy than it is now. And once a camera is in there, then FaceTime can't be far behind.
Hey AI, it's perfectly OK to call out 9to5Mac with a link to Gurman's story. And as much as I'm not crazy about the guy (or most of the writers on their site) he's got good sources and most of his leaks are accurate.
A better solution is a head-mounted device (not Google Glass, but a better iteration of the same concept) that has a boom mic with a camera built in. Positioned on an arm directly under your nose, that could provide a far clearer image up your nostrils than a watch-based solution would deliver. In addition, if cleverly designed, the boom mic could fold back when not in use, allowing the camera to stream video of your ear canal.
What if the digital crown slid out about 1cm and there was a camera on the side of it, and you push it back in to end the call? Since the camera is hidden inside in normal usage, it doesn't effect the aesthetic and also might address the Glass-like privacy concern.
Congratulations you just lost every iota of credibility with that suggestion. I think you might get a job at Google though they lap those kinds of nut job ideas up over there! Have you even thought through the impractical nature of how to point the lens? Add to that the battery drain, the fragile nature of the thing etc.etc.truly amazing really
Unbelievable, no one remember Apple has a patent or is / was working on a display that works as camera as well. Every pixel on the screen itself will also be a sensor as well.
I was hoping this would one day replace Touch ID button with high enough PPI.
Lets try to be realistic - FaceTime is probably ok, but it is not my communication medium of now or the future. Time and useful data being presented easily, when I need it, is what I want. "Useful" . Apple will separate out the "meaningless info" and give me what I need. For more, I can rely on my iOS device or my OS X device. I don't want to be interrupted all the time - I like to be able to once rate on what I am doing.
Because you can never tell with the future, I'm not going to say it'll never happen.
But as things stand now, it's highly unlikely. Not only is video chatting incredibly low, the fact that you'd need to hold your wrist up to use it would kill any ? Watch usage of it. After a few seconds, things get uncomfortable exponentially. Maybe for quick photos? Even then, it's going to take some evolution of how we interact with technology to make it useful.
Anyway, I'd much rather they invest into improving the other technology that is actually beneficial on the wrist, such as health sensors, processing, and the UI and quality of the watch. People forget how small the ? Watch is, especially the 38. They need to use that space conservatively.
Hey AI, it's perfectly OK to call out 9to5Mac with a link to Gurman's story. And as much as I'm not crazy about the guy (or most of the writers on their site) he's got good sources and most of his leaks are accurate.
I agree that he was very solid but people tend to forget when he's wrong, like The Control Center in El-Cap that he told Gruber.
Another swing for the fences call by DED rooted in baseless opinions with some logic, doesn't make it any more credible than the original rumor.
I too remember the overly verbose articles when there was no way Apple would ever go near Intel chips, rear cameras on iPads, NFC in devices, music subscriptions, Android can't survive, Samsung will be dead, Apple will win e-books, no stock dividend, Android Android...and on.
Arguing against technology and progress is always a mistake. While I too personally believe Facetime isn't coming to the watch, I wouldn't sit here today and tell you it's absolutely not happening. All the engineering points are entirely irrelevant, this is Apple, if they want to do something they will find a way. Only Apple knows that. Apple might make use of some sort of camera on a watch for different reasons: medical, quick capture of information, or things we don't see coming yet. Anyone's opinions aren't any more or less right than the guy next to you.
The main problems of a camera on the phone are not technical, but privacy related. Those are the ones that need to be looked at by all, not just apple, if someone wants to put a camera on a wearable.
A third option would be to have a camera lens protruding from the edge of the watch. That would... turn the classic, fashionable design of Apple Watch into a clumsy, techy-looking "smartwatch,"
It's already clumsy & techy-looking, just refracted through the lens of Jony Ive's design aesthetic. I may be in the minority here, but the Apple Watch IMO is the most hideous thing Apple has put out in a long time. It's just Cook & Ive reading tech blogs, seeing all the articles about Apple being "left behind" unless they too made one of these useless smart watches, and falling all over themselves to get one out.
The technology is not there yet for smart watches to be useful for anything more than notifications and wireless payments, both of which happen on the phone you're required to own in order for it to work. Adding FaceTime would make it much more useful, but just imagine the hit the battery would take from a single, five-minute FaceTime call!
Until Apple can give me complete functionality on wifi, a battery that lasts at least a week, and a price that's 25% (Sport model) to 40% (Watch model) cheaper, and improves the aesthetics, I wouldn't consider purchasing an Apple Watch.
Many of these points I tried to point out on 9to5 at the time.. They kept saying you need an 'upgraded' wifi chip in the forums.. omg.. wow.. no you don't.. The wifi is coming with watchOS 2 .. but no.. no one would listen..
Also, WWDC said FaceTime was coming to Apple Watch as well.. AUDIO FaceTime, WITH WiFi updates so you don't need your phone to do FaceTime Audio calls.
It's like they thought if they just added a 'camera' into the mix it would be a cool Click Bait article.
I haft to note the software side of isn't bad, 300 by 300 screen could be supported by 480p camera. Also the iPod nano at a time had a camera, so it could fit. Not that people will use it, as well a 5 minute limit might be needed.
Apple should cram features into the Watch, the way Samsung has into theirs, without regard to how well it works or who would use it. Just add checkboxes to a features list. That's sure the please the geeks and tech media. How about Watch VR: a watch that you strap onto each eyeball to experience VR? C'mon Apple, make it happen.
Another swing for the fences call by DED rooted in baseless opinions with some logic, doesn't make it any more credible than the original rumor.
I too remember the overly verbose articles when there was no way Apple would ever go near Intel chips, rear cameras on iPads, NFC in devices, music subscriptions, Android can't survive, Samsung will be dead, Apple will win e-books, no stock dividend, Android Android...and on.
Arguing against technology and progress is always a mistake. While I too personally believe Facetime isn't coming to the watch, I wouldn't sit here today and tell you it's absolutely not happening. All the engineering points are entirely irrelevant, this is Apple, if they want to do something they will find a way. Only Apple knows that. Apple might make use of some sort of camera on a watch for different reasons: medical, quick capture of information, or things we don't see coming yet. Anyone's opinions aren't any more or less right than the guy next to you.
strangely, DED has failed to remember Apple applying for a patent over 5 years ago that solves this very engineering issue.
I hope they don't. I could see this being cool one day when they have room and features to spare, but right now they need to make the watch thinner, better looking, and add GPS and more health sensors. FaceTime audio would be great though, so you can make untethered calls. A camera would be cool but a FaceTime camera can wait.
Comments
I think the creepy factor will keep it off the watch for a little longer. Blackberry used to have a shutter sound when you took a picture that couldn't be disabled to help thwart secret picture takers, but now people just expect that if someone is holding a phone they could be taking a picture.
I think that resting my wrist on a table with the watch looking up at my face is a comfortable position. However you may end up with a lot of booger selfie videos.
I would say that the #1 obstacle is fitting picture in picture on that tiny screen. A camera will come to the watch, its the natural progression, but two-way video needs to be rethought before implementation.
FaceTime would be included for the same reasons they allow phone calls to be received and made -- not so you can chat for an hour with your Aunt Martha -- there's only 3 hours of continuous talk time on the watch. It's there for one reason-- convenience. And nothing's more convenient than answering a FaceTime call without having to dig out your phone to do it, especially given the connect time. How many FaceTime calls have I missed because I couldn't get to my phone in time? Most of my FaceTime calls only last :30 anyway, and if I need longer, I hand it off to the phone, or call someone back when there's a better time to chat, but at least you can take the call. As it is, I have to hold my iPhone up to my Face, as well as the iPad which is even worse, so how is holding up the watch any bigger an issue? Moreover there's no reason to hold your arm up at all, most people look down at their devices anyway, no different with FaceTime. So this is the least compelling argument against this of all.
At least the article didn't claim there won't be a camera at all. Considering the chief benefit of the watch is convenience and leaving ones iPhone in their pocket, as well as Apple's marketing efforts toward the selfie crowd with the iPhone, it makes perfect sense they'd want to get a camera into the watch as quickly as possible. They probably need to add something new and exciting to market anyway, rather than just a processor bump.. Will it be watch 2.0? Who knows, but its coming. And trying to compare this as similar to the Google glass is dead in the water -- the Google glass camera was pointed directly at whatever the user was looking at with no way to know if it was recording. It would be pretty obvious if someone was taking a picture with the watch, or with a mobile phone for that matter. So no more creepy than it is now. And once a camera is in there, then FaceTime can't be far behind.
What if the digital crown slid out about 1cm and there was a camera on the side of it, and you push it back in to end the call? Since the camera is hidden inside in normal usage, it doesn't effect the aesthetic and also might address the Glass-like privacy concern.
Congratulations you just lost every iota of credibility with that suggestion. I think you might get a job at Google though they lap those kinds of nut job ideas up over there! Have you even thought through the impractical nature of how to point the lens? Add to that the battery drain, the fragile nature of the thing etc.etc.truly amazing really
I was hoping this would one day replace Touch ID button with high enough PPI.
Apple will separate out the "meaningless info" and give me what I need. For more, I can rely on my iOS device or my OS X device. I don't want to be interrupted all the time - I like to be able to once rate on what I am doing.
But as things stand now, it's highly unlikely. Not only is video chatting incredibly low, the fact that you'd need to hold your wrist up to use it would kill any ? Watch usage of it. After a few seconds, things get uncomfortable exponentially. Maybe for quick photos? Even then, it's going to take some evolution of how we interact with technology to make it useful.
Anyway, I'd much rather they invest into improving the other technology that is actually beneficial on the wrist, such as health sensors, processing, and the UI and quality of the watch. People forget how small the ? Watch is, especially the 38. They need to use that space conservatively.
I agree that he was very solid but people tend to forget when he's wrong, like The Control Center in El-Cap that he told Gruber.
Another swing for the fences call by DED rooted in baseless opinions with some logic, doesn't make it any more credible than the original rumor.
I too remember the overly verbose articles when there was no way Apple would ever go near Intel chips, rear cameras on iPads, NFC in devices, music subscriptions, Android can't survive, Samsung will be dead, Apple will win e-books, no stock dividend, Android Android...and on.
Arguing against technology and progress is always a mistake. While I too personally believe Facetime isn't coming to the watch, I wouldn't sit here today and tell you it's absolutely not happening. All the engineering points are entirely irrelevant, this is Apple, if they want to do something they will find a way. Only Apple knows that. Apple might make use of some sort of camera on a watch for different reasons: medical, quick capture of information, or things we don't see coming yet. Anyone's opinions aren't any more or less right than the guy next to you.
The main problems of a camera on the phone are not technical, but privacy related. Those are the ones that need to be looked at by all, not just apple, if someone wants to put a camera on a wearable.
It's already clumsy & techy-looking, just refracted through the lens of Jony Ive's design aesthetic. I may be in the minority here, but the Apple Watch IMO is the most hideous thing Apple has put out in a long time. It's just Cook & Ive reading tech blogs, seeing all the articles about Apple being "left behind" unless they too made one of these useless smart watches, and falling all over themselves to get one out.
The technology is not there yet for smart watches to be useful for anything more than notifications and wireless payments, both of which happen on the phone you're required to own in order for it to work. Adding FaceTime would make it much more useful, but just imagine the hit the battery would take from a single, five-minute FaceTime call!
Until Apple can give me complete functionality on wifi, a battery that lasts at least a week, and a price that's 25% (Sport model) to 40% (Watch model) cheaper, and improves the aesthetics, I wouldn't consider purchasing an Apple Watch.
- A Very Disillusioned Apple User
Rumor: a full Office apps for Apple watch.
Also, WWDC said FaceTime was coming to Apple Watch as well.. AUDIO FaceTime, WITH WiFi updates so you don't need your phone to do FaceTime Audio calls.
It's like they thought if they just added a 'camera' into the mix it would be a cool Click Bait article.
Apple should cram features into the Watch, the way Samsung has into theirs, without regard to how well it works or who would use it. Just add checkboxes to a features list. That's sure the please the geeks and tech media. How about Watch VR: a watch that you strap onto each eyeball to experience VR? C'mon Apple, make it happen.
Lots of naysayers here, but I think Facetime support would be just the kind of pizazz feature that would encourage folks to purchase and/or upgrade.
strangely, DED has failed to remember Apple applying for a patent over 5 years ago that solves this very engineering issue.
you put the camera behind the screen.
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/08/apple_files_patent_for_camera_hidden_behind_display
I'll just leave this here
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B015FrPQ6r61Ck;226ADF69-5B69-475F-B563-AD51A1991E72
Actually, that part of the story ("The Time Trap" by Edgar P. Jacobs) plays out in the 6th millennium........