I disagree with you. Making phone calls on the watch would not be its only use. Being able to run apps by themselves would also be why one would need cellular connectivity. Also, being able to send and receive text messages. All of those things need some type of connectivity (other than wi-fi) in order to work. I truly believe that their is a market out there for people who wouldn't mind paying $5-$10 a month extra on their cellular plans to have reliability or reachability on their wrist.
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.
LTE should improve positioning accuracy without requiring any improvement to the GPS chip/software, because it will add triangulation from the nearest mobile phone masts/towers. Not that it is bad now. I run the same 7.5 km (4 1/2 mi) route twice a week and my Apple Watch is within +/-50 m (1.5%) every time.
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.
Honestly I tried searching to get more info on watch data plans and the stuff out there is sparse or outdated, so I have no idea if the activation fee is waived or not. My guess is almost no one is buying LTE watches at this point — limited product availability and poor battery life aren't doing them any favors.
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 is decent.
Does it allow you to use the Watch data and the Phone at the same time?
Yes, from what I've found, LTE-equipped smartwatches even have their own distinct phone number to identify on the cell network.
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.
If I can get 2-3 hours of GPS tracking and music streaming while running/biking outside, $5/mo. is worth it to me. I'd just recharge my watch when I shower afterwards. The real question is whether Apple would allow battery life that short for media streaming. It wouldn't surprise me if LTE use on a hypothetical cellular Apple Watch were severely restricted to extend battery life, which could mean no streaming. That would be a shame.
Like GPS, LTE only has benefit if you don't carry your phone. For most, its more of a marketing tool & bragging rights than a functional improvement.
Also, the part the LTE advocates are missing is that it isn't just additional carrier charges: based on the IPads, the LTE modem adds another $100-$130 to the cost. For a $300-$400 watch, that's a steep percentage price increase.
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.
If I can get 2-3 hours of GPS tracking and music streaming while running/biking outside, $5/mo. is worth it to me. I'd just recharge my watch when I shower afterwards. The real question is whether Apple would allow battery life that short for media streaming. It wouldn't surprise me if LTE use on a hypothetical cellular Apple Watch were severely restricted to extend battery life, which could mean no streaming. That would be a shame.
Carrier prices, component prices, component size, and component battery life all seem like major issues, and I don't think that most users will want to need to pay the extra money for a cellular and GPS enable Watch.
One potential solution would be a way to build upon the Emergency SOS feature currently built into the Watch. Instead of tethering back to the iPhone, this could be entirely local. However, it would mean that you can otherwise disable the HW when not in use. If it's ushered in as a potential safety feature it might work.
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.
If I can get 2-3 hours of GPS tracking and music streaming while running/biking outside, $5/mo. is worth it to me. I'd just recharge my watch when I shower afterwards. The real question is whether Apple would allow battery life that short for media streaming. It wouldn't surprise me if LTE use on a hypothetical cellular Apple Watch were severely restricted to extend battery life, which could mean no streaming. That would be a shame.
Carrier prices, component prices, component size, and component battery life all seem like major issues, and I don't think that most users will want to need to pay the extra money for a cellular and GPS enable Watch.
One potential solution would be a way to build upon the Emergency SOS feature currently built into the Watch. Instead of tethering back to the iPhone, this could be entirely local. However, it would mean that you can otherwise disable the HW when not in use. If it's ushered in as a potential safety feature it might work.
I agree. I think that Apple does too -- because otherwise they would not have come out with the Series 1 and Series 2.
I just hope that not too many people get sucked into the line carried by most of the media that says: "The Series 2 is for running and cycling because it has a GPS". The Series 1 does too, but you have to carry your phone (which I think most do anyway) -- but it seems the media just doesn't realize that.
Comments
If I can get 2-3 hours of GPS tracking and music streaming while running/biking outside, $5/mo. is worth it to me. I'd just recharge my watch when I shower afterwards. The real question is whether Apple would allow battery life that short for media streaming. It wouldn't surprise me if LTE use on a hypothetical cellular Apple Watch were severely restricted to extend battery life, which could mean no streaming. That would be a shame.
Also, the part the LTE advocates are missing is that it isn't just additional carrier charges: based on the IPads, the LTE modem adds another $100-$130 to the cost. For a $300-$400 watch, that's a steep percentage price increase.
One potential solution would be a way to build upon the Emergency SOS feature currently built into the Watch. Instead of tethering back to the iPhone, this could be entirely local. However, it would mean that you can otherwise disable the HW when not in use. If it's ushered in as a potential safety feature it might work.
I just hope that not too many people get sucked into the line carried by most of the media that says: "The Series 2 is for running and cycling because it has a GPS". The Series 1 does too, but you have to carry your phone (which I think most do anyway) -- but it seems the media just doesn't realize that.