Apple seen switching to glass-film touch tech this year for Apple Watch Series 3

AppleInsider · February 21, 2017 2:49PM

For the next Apple Watch, Apple is likely to switch from touch-on-lens technology to a glass-film option, in the process changing up suppliers for its touch technology, a report claimed on Tuesday.

Apple will probably turn to either Biel Crystal or General Interface Solution to produce the glass-film touch panels, DigiTimes said, citing industry sources. Biel has separately been rumored as one of the suppliers for the front and back glass on three upcoming iPhone models, including an OLED-equipped "iPhone 8" or "iPhone X."

If Apple does take on Biel and GIS for a third-generation Watch, it will be dropping current touch panel supplier TPK, which has allegedly been unable to get good yield rates for touch-on-lens and been planning on its own to halt production for the Watch. The company is reportedly trying to return to profitability, since the yield issue was responsible for losses during 2016.

On a technical level the difficulty was said to be the curved surface of the Watch, which complicated the manufacturing process for touch panels.

Few rumors have emerged about a third-generation Watch model, which will presumably ship this fall if it follows in the path of the Series 1 and Series 2.

One possibility is LTE support, which missed its debut with the Series 2, likely because Apple was unable to address battery drain problems in time. The company was purportedly in talks with American and European carriers, and considering options for low-power cellular chips.

Adding LTE could allow a Watch to operate as a fully independent device, rather than being tethered to an iPhone most of the time. The Series 2 gained somewhat more independence thanks to built-in GPS, useful for fitness and navigation apps.

Sox129 · February 21, 2017 3:04PM

This writer insinuates that the series 1 and 2 watches were successive releases. They weren't. Just different models.

larrya · February 21, 2017 3:11PM

Based on gen 2 reviews I would rather see higher resolution GPS sampling than LTE so I can actually consider replacing my Garmin Forerunner. There's too much slop right now, especially in measuring pace.

NY1822 · February 21, 2017 3:11PM

...

nhughes · February 21, 2017 3:11PM

Sox129 said:

This writer insinuates that the series 1 and 2 watches were successive releases. They weren't. Just different models.

First-generation watch did not launch in the fall — series 1 and series 2 did. Article is just saying that if Apple sticks to the fall release schedule, it would be following last year's refresh.

vainboxtech · February 21, 2017 3:14PM

As far as I am concerned, it would be sufficient if the LTE was used for an emergency call option -- free of charge of course. And by emergency I don't just mean the ambulance, but also, for example, sending a text to a contact. I personally dislike the thought of going on a 50+ mile bike ride and have no way of calling if I have a crash, or even just running for 30 min and not having any way to get help if I slip and break my leg. None of this happened, of course, but still.

Soli · February 21, 2017 3:45PM

sog35 said:
The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

The "real trick" is making the HW small enough, cheap enough, and use considerably less power.

$10–20 per month would be a great deal when adding a line is already $20–40 without even considering voice, text, or data usage. If they can make it $10 per month without any other costs if you also have a smartphone on the account, I'd probably consider it even though I don't like using my Watch for internet or phone calls.

tjwolf · February 21, 2017 4:02PM

Pundits keep harping on the lack of cellular as if it's a "must have" in a smart watch. I couldn't disagree more. While I see its desirability for emergencies while out exercising, it seems to me a fringe use-case - i.e. a selling point to a small minority of Apple Watch users. Apple might consider making a more expensive version that has it, but I doubt the "base" Apple Watch will see something like this.

Making/taking calls on the watch is just not that comfortable! You have to hold your arm up and, in noisy environment, it's difficult to hear the other side from the speakers. Sure, Bluetooth headphones would ameliorate this, but not that many folks have or carry those around either.

macxpress · February 21, 2017 4:15PM

sog35 said:

I would love to have an LTE watch. Some times I just don't want to lug my 6+ with me, like when I go to the park or trails.

The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

Haha like that's ever gonna happen! If there's extra revenue to be made from cell phone carriers, they're all over it and then some! You also have to make an LTF chip that doesn't drain the tiny battery in your watch. My 1st gen Apple Watch gets really really good battery life, but if it had LTE, who knows if it would still be that way.

nhughes · February 21, 2017 4:23PM

Soli said:

sog35 said:
The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

The "real trick" is making the HW small enough, cheap enough, and use considerably less power.

$10–20 per month would be a great deal when adding a line is already $20–40 without even considering voice, text, or data usage. If they can make it $10 per month without any other costs if you also have a smartphone on the account, I'd probably consider it even though I don't like using my Watch for internet or phone calls.

I believe Verizon and T-Mobile charge $5 per month to add an LTE smart watch to an existing shared data plan. AT&T is at $10. I doubt very many people are paying for these plans, so there isn't exactly a price war — yet. But you can be sure that if and when the Apple Watch gains LTE, all of the carriers will probably fall in line with similar pricing.

$5 per month seems fair to me, especially if they aren't going to add any gigs to your data cap. If you're going to charge $10 per month, give me an extra 2GB for the data pool, or something.

Soli · February 21, 2017 4:40PM

nhughes said:

Soli said:

sog35 said:
The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

The "real trick" is making the HW small enough, cheap enough, and use considerably less power.

$10–20 per month would be a great deal when adding a line is already $20–40 without even considering voice, text, or data usage. If they can make it $10 per month without any other costs if you also have a smartphone on the account, I'd probably consider it even though I don't like using my Watch for internet or phone calls.

I believe Verizon and T-Mobile charge $5 per month to add an LTE smart watch to an existing shared data plan. AT&T is at $10. I doubt very many people are paying for these plans, so there isn't exactly a price war — yet. But you can be sure that if and when the Apple Watch gains LTE, all of the carriers will probably fall in line with similar pricing.

$5 per month seems fair to me, especially if they aren't going to add any gigs to your data cap. If you're going to charge $10 per month, give me an extra 2GB for the data pool, or something.

Good to know they don't have excessive monthly device fees for smartwatches. Is the standard $35 activation fee still require?

If and when this happens I hope they don't start fleecing smartwatch customers, but it's entirely possible considering how data rates have changed since both the iPhone and iPad were first announced.

jbdragon · February 21, 2017 4:57PM

sog35 said:

I would love to have an LTE watch. Some times I just don't want to lug my 6+ with me, like when I go to the park or trails.

The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

I rally don't get the whole LTE, Cell service thing. It just makes the watch more bulky. You need a lot more battery to power it and for what? For the rare times you don't have your phone on you? Call that free time away from the phone!!! Then pay for service for your watch? No thanks. I'm still using my first generation watch and it still works great. Wear it every day. As long as Apple keeps supporting it, I'll continue to use it. Personally I think where Smartphones on average get replaced every 2 years, a Smartwatch gets replaced every 4 years. It's a watch, there's not going to be much in the way of changes. Though I tend to hold onto my phones for quite some time also. Had my iPhone 4 for 4 + years and I'm on my 3rd year with my iPhone 6. Still using a iPad 3 also, though that's getting really sssllllooowww and so It's time to upgrade. Waiting for the new iPads to get announced so I can buy a used iPad Air 2 for a good price.

jbdragon · February 21, 2017 4:58PM

larrya said:

Based on gen 2 reviews I would rather see higher resolution GPS sampling than LTE so I can actually consider replacing my Garmin Forerunner. There's too much slop right now, especially in measuring pace.

GPS is a battery hog! You'd need a larger watch to hold a larger battery.

jbdragon · February 21, 2017 5:20PM

tjwolf said:

Pundits keep harping on the lack of cellular as if it's a "must have" in a smart watch. I couldn't disagree more. While I see its desirability for emergencies while out exercising, it seems to me a fringe use-case - i.e. a selling point to a small minority of Apple Watch users. Apple might consider making a more expensive version that has it, but I doubt the "base" Apple Watch will see something like this.

Making/taking calls on the watch is just not that comfortable! You have to hold your arm up and, in noisy environment, it's difficult to hear the other side from the speakers. Sure, Bluetooth headphones would ameliorate this, but not that many folks have or carry those around either.

Cell service on the watch isn't as big deal as a few people make it out. It's not a new thing. Didn't LG just release a new SmartWatch with Cell service. A huge bulky looking thing that few people are ever going to buy. But there has been a few cases where I've left my phone in my office and get a call and can still answer on my Apple Watch because it's on the same Wifi Network and so that has come in handy. I won't do it for a long call, but I can answer and and if it's something that is going to be longer then a minute, then I'll just say I'll call them back on my phone as I'm on my Apple Watch. Sometimes it can be hard to get a hold of a tech person for one of our machines and if I miss a call, I'm back to waiting again. Most things though you don't want to do on a tiny watch screen. As they say, You spend hours on your Desktop, Minutes on your Smartphone and seconds on your Smartwatch and that's really how you should look at it. I don't want to be minutes on my Smartwatch. Not normally. It's quick glances. While I can do things on my Smartphone, it's slower and just easier to get on my Desktop when I can instead.

jbdragon · February 21, 2017 5:29PM

nhughes said:

Soli said:

sog35 said:
The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

The "real trick" is making the HW small enough, cheap enough, and use considerably less power.

$10–20 per month would be a great deal when adding a line is already $20–40 without even considering voice, text, or data usage. If they can make it $10 per month without any other costs if you also have a smartphone on the account, I'd probably consider it even though I don't like using my Watch for internet or phone calls.

I believe Verizon and T-Mobile charge $5 per month to add an LTE smart watch to an existing shared data plan. AT&T is at $10. I doubt very many people are paying for these plans, so there isn't exactly a price war — yet. But you can be sure that if and when the Apple Watch gains LTE, all of the carriers will probably fall in line with similar pricing.

$5 per month seems fair to me, especially if they aren't going to add any gigs to your data cap. If you're going to charge $10 per month, give me an extra 2GB for the data pool, or something.

$5 a month, I might go for. Just because it's mostly a gimmick I'd hardly use. So rarely do I not have my phone on me, and when I don't, I'm still linked to a Home or work Wifi and so can still answer phones calls on my Apple watch even though I may be quite a way away from my phone.

SpamSandwich · February 21, 2017 7:13PM

DigiTimes... 'nuff said.

GeorgeBMac · February 21, 2017 7:37PM

tjwolf said:

Pundits keep harping on the lack of cellular as if it's a "must have" in a smart watch. I couldn't disagree more. While I see its desirability for emergencies while out exercising, it seems to me a fringe use-case - i.e. a selling point to a small minority of Apple Watch users. Apple might consider making a more expensive version that has it, but I doubt the "base" Apple Watch will see something like this.

Making/taking calls on the watch is just not that comfortable! You have to hold your arm up and, in noisy environment, it's difficult to hear the other side from the speakers. Sure, Bluetooth headphones would ameliorate this, but not that many folks have or carry those around either.

I totally agree.   The same with GPS. Pundits harped on it not being an exercise tracker without GPS.   The fact is, it did have it -- you just had to have your phone with you.   And, 80% of the runners I know carry their phones whether or not they have an Apple Watch. So for the vast majority, it was a non-issue.
... I think the same for LTE.
.......It could expand functionality. But it won't do much for me.   I have my phone with me all the time anyway.

GeorgeBMac · February 21, 2017 7:43PM

jbdragon said:

sog35 said:

I would love to have an LTE watch. Some times I just don't want to lug my 6+ with me, like when I go to the park or trails.

The real trick is Apple needs to negotiate with the carriers to allow the LTE Watch to piggy back on your iPhone plan without any additional charges. Its an absolute no go if you have to pay an additional $10-$20 to use an LTE Watch on your cell plan.

I rally don't get the whole LTE, Cell service thing. It just makes the watch more bulky. You need a lot more battery to power it and for what? For the rare times you don't have your phone on you? Call that free time away from the phone!!! Then pay for service for your watch? No thanks. I'm still using my first generation watch and it still works great. Wear it every day. As long as Apple keeps supporting it, I'll continue to use it. Personally I think where Smartphones on average get replaced every 2 years, a Smartwatch gets replaced every 4 years. It's a watch, there's not going to be much in the way of changes. Though I tend to hold onto my phones for quite some time also. Had my iPhone 4 for 4 + years and I'm on my 3rd year with my iPhone 6. Still using a iPad 3 also, though that's getting really sssllllooowww and so It's time to upgrade. Waiting for the new iPads to get announced so I can buy a used iPad Air 2 for a good price.

I totally agree with you on the LTE. Not so much on the "average 4 years...".

That's probably a good estimate for those who use the watch as a watch (plus notifications, etc., etc.,). But for those who use it as a health and (especially) exercise tracker, the watch is still in its infancy with a lot of functional improvements coming that will add to the quality of the user experience.

GeorgeBMac · February 21, 2017 7:46PM

"Apple is likely to switch from touch-on-lens technology to a glass-film option"

I wish I had some idea of what they were talking about! What's the difference? Will it make a difference to the user and/or performance or functionality of the watch? Will it even be an improvement? (The text mentioned the switch was being made because of supply problems -- which does not suggest that this will necessarily be an improvement).

yojimbo007 · February 22, 2017 12:59AM

Whats glass film touch... and besides yield issues what other technological superiority does it bring into the picture for the consumer... or is this comsumer 2nd profits 1st move? And if it has superior functionality ... why wasnt it used from the get go.....? I have read a few articles about this ... cant find a clear answer.

ronaldglenn26 · February 22, 2017 3:18AM

tjwolf said:

Pundits keep harping on the lack of cellular as if it's a "must have" in a smart watch. I couldn't disagree more. While I see its desirability for emergencies while out exercising, it seems to me a fringe use-case - i.e. a selling point to a small minority of Apple Watch users. Apple might consider making a more expensive version that has it, but I doubt the "base" Apple Watch will see something like this.

Making/taking calls on the watch is just not that comfortable! You have to hold your arm up and, in noisy environment, it's difficult to hear the other side from the speakers. Sure, Bluetooth headphones would ameliorate this, but not that many folks have or carry those around either.

Apple seen switching to glass-film touch tech this year for Apple Watch Series 3

Comments