Report corroborates fall Apple Watch refresh with LTE connectivity, same design

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,295member
    eightzero said:
    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   
    I had several runners argue with me about this, claiming it was unsafe to run with their iPhones because it makes them a robbery target. Srsly.
    It goes to show that anybody can justify just about any conclusion that they want to justify...
    I wonder how they justify going out of their house with a phone?  
    anantksundaramjbdragon
  • Reply 22 of 55
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,295member
    coolerkid said:
    I could really care less about LTE, especially if they add an extra monthly cost for it to add it to my plan. I really care most about a new form factor. The current watch is ugly, and I HATE the digital crown and the rounded glass front. The Watch 2 was a disappointment, I didn't upgrade. I really hope that in the 3rd year of this device that they have a lot more to show than just LTE. It's a device with so much potential but terrible implementation. 
    There's several million users who strongly disagree.   I am one of them.  
    As with most Apple products, everything on it is there for a purpose.   If you are complaining about the square face, are you willing to chop off a third of the screen for the same size watch?   I'm not.
  • Reply 23 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member
    lkrupp said:
    I chuckle when I read posts demanding that LTE access on the new watches be free and part of one’s carrier plan. Not going to happen people. You are going to PAY for your watch to work, plain and simple. Carriers will jump on this as another way to make money and rightly so. It’s just a matter of how much you will pay.
    Carriers will, but I might be a hard sell to get me to by a Watch that carries a monthly fee. Maybe if it's just $10 as an additional device on my current plan I may do it, but that also assumes that battery will at least need to be as good as it is now.
  • Reply 24 of 55
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,295member
    coolerkid said:
    I could really care less about LTE, especially if they add an extra monthly cost for it to add it to my plan. I really care most about a new form factor. The current watch is ugly, and I HATE the digital crown and the rounded glass front. The Watch 2 was a disappointment, I didn't upgrade. I really hope that in the 3rd year of this device that they have a lot more to show than just LTE. It's a device with so much potential but terrible implementation. 
    Looks like you won't be getting one, then. I am sure Apple will pull through somehow.

    Good luck finding the perfect alternative.
    No, he'll be getting the Series 3 model that doesn't come with LTE, or if it is all one model without a premium, getting it but no activating the cellular. Just like I will.

    A Very Small segment of the market has any use for LTE on Apple Watch. The product is an iPhone accessory and 100% of current owners use it that way.

    LTE is basically for runners. They are the only legitimate use case where it is desirable to stay connected with Apple Watch but leave iPhone behind.

    Just like Series 2 was basically for swimmers, and nothing else.

    But Series 3 will be about more than LTE, for sure. There will be an S3 chip that likely brings Apple Watch performance up to where it should be (Series 0 is just too slow). And hopefully a revised taptic engine that is far more noticeable.
    Right now 100% of AW users use it as an iPhone accessory because they HAVE to use it as an accessory for any and all communications.

    Yes, runners will benefit from LTE.  But they aren't the only ones.
    I won't even cut my grass without a phone -- in case something happens.   LTE in a watch cuts that cord and makes it less necessary to carry a phone for communications and safety reasons.   The potential is actually enormous.  
    alandail
  • Reply 25 of 55
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,295member
    lilroot9 said:
    I think the only way I want LTE on my watch is if I can suspend or push my phone notifications to my watch to then leave the phone behind and go on a run, hike, to the beach, or maybe a sporting event. I could see that adding a fee on my bill, but I don't want a separate number or anything, that would be useless. As stated above, the DATA part will be next to nothing (compared to phone consumption). The "next" thing the watch will be missing is a camera to take pictures for when I leave my phone behind, but I am sure that will come some day.
    Yes!
    I was out swimming in a lake with my grandson on Sunday and could have really used a waterproof watch with LTE...   Instead, I was naked!   No technology on me at all.  Just a pair of swim trunks...
  • Reply 26 of 55
    eightzero said:
    coolerkid said:
    I could really care less about LTE, . 
    This of course means you care a lot, because you could care less. 
    Sorry to be pedantic, but this one has been beaten to death multiple times in these threads.

    Both "could care less" and "couldn't care less" are perfectly valid usages. (The former is loosely similar to a 'sarcastic inversion.')

    :-)
    I'M SO SURE!     :smile: 

    Actually, one thing I AM sure about is that the LTE watch will cost at least $175 more than the WiFi watch (which I think is actually not WiFi, but whatever).

    What counts is having the secure enclave, and a better processor and blue tooth connection.  If I can get an audio book and podcasts onto the watch, then it will probably transmit better to my headphones than the iPhone does, I have to carry it in the left pocket or it cuts out.   Better styling would be better, but it's either get a watch or upgrade my phone and a new phone is just another phone, while a watch is a completely new deal.

  • Reply 27 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member
    coolerkid said:
    I could really care less about LTE, especially if they add an extra monthly cost for it to add it to my plan. I really care most about a new form factor. The current watch is ugly, and I HATE the digital crown and the rounded glass front. The Watch 2 was a disappointment, I didn't upgrade. I really hope that in the 3rd year of this device that they have a lot more to show than just LTE. It's a device with so much potential but terrible implementation. 
    Looks like you won't be getting one, then. I am sure Apple will pull through somehow.

    Good luck finding the perfect alternative.
    No, he'll be getting the Series 3 model that doesn't come with LTE, or if it is all one model without a premium, getting it but no activating the cellular. Just like I will.

    A Very Small segment of the market has any use for LTE on Apple Watch. The product is an iPhone accessory and 100% of current owners use it that way.

    LTE is basically for runners. They are the only legitimate use case where it is desirable to stay connected with Apple Watch but leave iPhone behind.

    Just like Series 2 was basically for swimmers, and nothing else.

    But Series 3 will be about more than LTE, for sure. There will be an S3 chip that likely brings Apple Watch performance up to where it should be (Series 0 is just too slow). And hopefully a revised taptic engine that is far more noticeable.
    Right now 100% of AW users use it as an iPhone accessory because they HAVE to use it as an accessory for any and all communications.
    1) It came with WiFI for communication on day 1.

    2) How will adding LTE change anything about it being an accessory to the iPhone when the UI is still just a tiny display with no physical port?
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 28 of 55
    eightzero said:
    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   
    I had several runners argue with me about this, claiming it was unsafe to run with their iPhones because it makes them a robbery target. Srsly.
    If that's a concern where you run, maybe find a safer place to run. I mean, would they feel better not being able to dial for emergency services on a run, if they're worried about robbery?
  • Reply 29 of 55
    nhughesnhughes Posts: 750editor
    eightzero said:
    Conventional rumor wisdom is this AW announcement will be made at the iPhone launch in September, only a few weeks away now. When should we start seeing the invites to the launch event?

    Historically Apple invites the press to these events a whopping 7 days before, but in recent years they have pushed the invitations out a bit more to the 10-14-ish-day range. The date conveniently "leaks" a few weeks before that, so members of the press can plan accordingly before the late invitation arrives.

    See: Last year, invitations for the Sept. 7 event went out on Aug. 29, but the date was rumored as of Aug. 10.

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/08/29/apple-sends-invitations-for-iphone-7-event-on-sept-7-see-you-on-the-7th

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/08/10/redesigned-ultra-thin-macbook-pro-with-amd-gpu-not-expected-to-debut-at-iphone-7-event-sept-7

    Looking at the calendar this year, I would expect an event on either Wed., Sept. 6, or Tue., Sept. 12. And I would expect the new iPhones to be officially released on either Fri., Sept. 22, or Fri., Sept. 29.
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 30 of 55
    lilroot9 said:
    I think the only way I want LTE on my watch is if I can suspend or push my phone notifications to my watch to then leave the phone behind and go on a run, hike, to the beach, or maybe a sporting event. I could see that adding a fee on my bill, but I don't want a separate number or anything, that would be useless. As stated above, the DATA part will be next to nothing (compared to phone consumption). The "next" thing the watch will be missing is a camera to take pictures for when I leave my phone behind, but I am sure that will come some day.
    Yes!
    I was out swimming in a lake with my grandson on Sunday and could have really used a waterproof watch with LTE...   Instead, I was naked!   No technology on me at all.  Just a pair of swim trunks...
     You are totally missing my point. But yes, I dont want technology on me 24/7. But if I was on vacation going to the beach, I would like to leave my phone behind for 3-4 hours and know that I could text/call people if I needed to, or lost a member of my party. They are making a waterproof LTE watch, not saying I want them to, they are already doing it. Dont come at me like I am saying I want them to make one. I still have series 1 and I dont think I would get this one either. I was just saying I would consider if I could push my service to it for a period of time. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 31 of 55
    akindcakindc Posts: 14member
    Just give me a damn circular face already!!!
  • Reply 32 of 55
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,071member
    eightzero said:
    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   
    I had several runners argue with me about this, claiming it was unsafe to run with their iPhones because it makes them a robbery target. Srsly.
    So they'll be mugged for their Apple Watch!. I thought the phone stealing was about done with as phones are all locked up so it's basically useless? 
  • Reply 33 of 55
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,071member
    Soli said:
    lkrupp said:
    I chuckle when I read posts demanding that LTE access on the new watches be free and part of one’s carrier plan. Not going to happen people. You are going to PAY for your watch to work, plain and simple. Carriers will jump on this as another way to make money and rightly so. It’s just a matter of how much you will pay.
    Carriers will, but I might be a hard sell to get me to by a Watch that carries a monthly fee. Maybe if it's just $10 as an additional device on my current plan I may do it, but that also assumes that battery will at least need to be as good as it is now.
    $10 is too much. That's $120 a year for something that won't even be used much as most of the time you'll have your phone with you doing all the work. I wouldn't pay more then $5 a month, though free as part of your iPhone plan is even better.

  • Reply 34 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,283member
    coolerkid said:
    coolerkid said:
    I could really care less about LTE, especially if they add an extra monthly cost for it to add it to my plan. I really care most about a new form factor. The current watch is ugly, and I HATE the digital crown and the rounded glass front. The Watch 2 was a disappointment, I didn't upgrade. I really hope that in the 3rd year of this device that they have a lot more to show than just LTE. It's a device with so much potential but terrible implementation. 
    Looks like you won't be getting one, then. I am sure Apple will pull through somehow.

    Good luck finding the perfect alternative.
    The sad state of Smartwatches is that Apple Watch will still the best, even if they don't update it for years. 
    Claiming it hasn’t been updated for years is nonsense. It’s been updated, hardware and especially software, but that doesn’t mean it gets a completely redesign every year just because. 
    Soli
  • Reply 35 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member
    jbdragon said:
    Soli said:
    lkrupp said:
    I chuckle when I read posts demanding that LTE access on the new watches be free and part of one’s carrier plan. Not going to happen people. You are going to PAY for your watch to work, plain and simple. Carriers will jump on this as another way to make money and rightly so. It’s just a matter of how much you will pay.
    Carriers will, but I might be a hard sell to get me to by a Watch that carries a monthly fee. Maybe if it's just $10 as an additional device on my current plan I may do it, but that also assumes that battery will at least need to be as good as it is now.
    $10 is too much. That's $120 a year for something that won't even be used much as most of the time you'll have your phone with you doing all the work. I wouldn't pay more then $5 a month, though free as part of your iPhone plan is even better.

    $10 is the minimum I’ve seen for adding an extra line to your cell phone plan, hence my reasoning for using that value in my statement. That doesn’t include the device activation fee, which I believe is $35 for Verizon.

    Hopefully Apple can work out a deal with carriers, but just having all these extra devices on their network—regardless how much data is used—has incurred extra charges by carriers, as far as I’m aware.

    Do you cellphones geared toward the elderly for emergency purposes have a per line charge or activation charges when being added to a family plan?

    We’ve had well over a decade of “smart” watches with cellular connectivity; what kind of charges did they have attached to them?
  • Reply 36 of 55
    Because of power/battery limitations, I suspect that this will not be a cutting of the cord between the Apple Watch and iPhone.   Rather, it will kick in when the paired iPhone is no longer connected.  But otherwise the AW will continue to rely on the higher powered iPhone for many services.

    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   Well, that and having Apple Music streaming.  

    I think this will be a nice enhancement -- but not a game changer where the Apple Watch replaces the iPhone.
    So true. Not particularly safe. Which is why it is a well known fact that solo exercises like running & cycling were invented in the early 1980s by wealthy Wall Street types who could afford the required equipment, and eventually was widely adopted in the late 1990s with the consumer cell phone revolution. 
  • Reply 37 of 55
    eightzero said:
    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   
    I had several runners argue with me about this, claiming it was unsafe to run with their iPhones because it makes them a robbery target. Srsly.
    It goes to show that anybody can justify just about any conclusion that they want to justify...
    I wonder how they justify going out of their house with a phone?  
    Nonsense. It all depends where you live. I live in a city once titled the Murder Capital of the country, and people certainly get mugged often. Wallets and cell phones are standard fare. This despite being in a nice neighborhood with good property value, but near more impoverished regions, so the thugs come in.

    I swear it's like some of you just can't imagine people living in situations different than your own...
  • Reply 38 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member
    polymnia said:
    Because of power/battery limitations, I suspect that this will not be a cutting of the cord between the Apple Watch and iPhone.   Rather, it will kick in when the paired iPhone is no longer connected.  But otherwise the AW will continue to rely on the higher powered iPhone for many services.

    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   Well, that and having Apple Music streaming.  

    I think this will be a nice enhancement -- but not a game changer where the Apple Watch replaces the iPhone.
    So true. Not particularly safe. Which is why it is a well known fact that solo exercises like running & cycling were invented in the early 1980s by wealthy Wall Street types who could afford the required equipment, and eventually was widely adopted in the late 1990s with the consumer cell phone revolution. 
    What?! Is that suppose to be sarcastic?!
  • Reply 39 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,748member

    coolerkid said:
    coolerkid said:
    I could really care less about LTE, especially if they add an extra monthly cost for it to add it to my plan. I really care most about a new form factor. The current watch is ugly, and I HATE the digital crown and the rounded glass front. The Watch 2 was a disappointment, I didn't upgrade. I really hope that in the 3rd year of this device that they have a lot more to show than just LTE. It's a device with so much potential but terrible implementation. 
    Looks like you won't be getting one, then. I am sure Apple will pull through somehow.

    Good luck finding the perfect alternative.
    The sad state of Smartwatches is that Apple Watch will still the best, even if they don't update it for years. 
    Claiming it hasn’t been updated for years is nonsense. It’s been updated, hardware and especially software, but that doesn’t mean it gets a completely redesign every year just because. 
    Wasn’t it about 1.5 year years that had 3 different versions of Apple Watch and watchOS?
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 40 of 55

    eightzero said:
    But, many runners and other exercisers do not want to carry a phone with them while exercising.  But, it's not particularly safe to run without a way of calling for help if you need it.   It's why most runners carry their phones.   
    I had several runners argue with me about this, claiming it was unsafe to run with their iPhones because it makes them a robbery target. Srsly.
    If that's a concern where you run, maybe find a safer place to run. 
    Yes, we should just pack up and move the burbs, right? It's that easy.  >face palm< 
Sign In or Register to comment.