He believes that Qualcomm will be responsible for the baseband chip in the so-called "Apple Watch Series 3." While Intel offers a competing chip, it isn't as efficient as Qualcomm's product, he said.
Qualcomm? Huh.
They may take each other to court but both companies want to maximize their own profits so they deal with each other.
It's interesting to see confirmation that it will use an eSIM. It's a no brainer, really, since, as pointed out in the article, there's nowhere to put a slot for a SIM tray. I will be interested to see what happens with eSIM adoption as a result.
For instance, Australia is a market where the eSIM is yet to be adopted. If you buy a modern iPad with LTE, you can't use the eSIM to connect to any of the local Telcos, only to roaming services for international travel. The AppleWatch could be the product that gets Australian telcos to support the eSIM, although it wouldn't surprise me if they only support it as a limited service: only on the watch, only connected to a mobile phone plan, and so on.
One thing I'd like to see, but I suspect it won't be in the initial implementation from Apple, is tethering to the watch. It might just be because I've left my LTE modem in one too many coffee shops, though.
I do believe that Apple should make this compatible with Android. At least, make an app for Android to set and control it as well as to allow updates. Likely they would have to make it work with Google Play, and Pay as well. That’s too bad, but any Android buyer of this probably wouldn’t want to get apps from the Apple App Store, or to maintain an Apple credit card account.
still, I think they should do it because unlike the iPhone, this isn’t nearly as likely to be a gateway to other Apple products as the iPhone is, so it doesn’t need software integration as much. Considering that the phone has about a 40% user share here in the USA, and a much smaller percentage elsewhere, even among those who buy expensive Android models, it could expand sales enough to ensure its dominance.
I agree in theory but understand why Apple doesn't. They cannot assure that the user experience will be adequate on an Android device.
It's interesting to see confirmation that it will use an eSIM. It's a no brainer, really, since, as pointed out in the article, there's nowhere to put a slot for a SIM tray. I will be interested to see what happens with eSIM adoption as a result.
For instance, Australia is a market where the eSIM is yet to be adopted. If you buy a modern iPad with LTE, you can't use the eSIM to connect to any of the local Telcos, only to roaming services for international travel. The AppleWatch could be the product that gets Australian telcos to support the eSIM, although it wouldn't surprise me if they only support it as a limited service: only on the watch, only connected to a mobile phone plan, and so on.
One thing I'd like to see, but I suspect it won't be in the initial implementation from Apple, is tethering to the watch. It might just be because I've left my LTE modem in one too many coffee shops, though.
Makes sense if they are looking to do a free e-SIM style LTE integration that gets some essential services working, but costs the user little or nothing.
people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch.
It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.
It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.
2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?
thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
I just call the Watch (cap W), which is technically correct?
If you’re saying “Apple’s watch”, it doesn’t matter, though lower case would be the correct way. It depends. If you’re saying “the watch”, that isn’t necessarily referring to it by name, so that’s ok too.but if you’re intending to use the name then it should be either Apple Watch, which is the official name, or, to abbreviate it, aWatch, or AWatch, which just looks odd.
normally, the full name or the accepted abbreviation (when easily recognizable) of a product name is acceptable. But changing it isn’t correct. I was in advertising for a number of years, and my company, after that, dealt with brand names on a regular basis. Companies can get very feisty about improper spelling and abbreviations. And Apple had a brief fight over iWatch. Whether that was a reason they didn’t use it, I don’t know. But they’re apparently through with using “i” in front of names, and I think we should honor their branding choices by using them appropriately.
If you’re saying “Apple’s watch”, it doesn’t matter, though lower case would be the correct way. It depends. If you’re saying “the watch”, that isn’t necessarily referring to it by name, so that’s ok too.but if you’re intending to use the name then it should be either Apple Watch, which is the official name, or, to abbreviate it, aWatch, or AWatch, which just looks odd.
normally, the full name or the accepted abbreviation (when easily recognizable) of a product name is acceptable. But changing it isn’t correct. I was in advertising for a number of years, and my company, after that, dealt with brand names on a regular basis. Companies can get very feisty about improper spelling and abbreviations. And Apple had a brief fight over iWatch. Whether that was a reason they didn’t use it, I don’t know. But they’re apparently through with using “i” in front of names, and I think we should honor their branding choices by using them appropriately.
Now you're really off the reservation. The trademark isn't "Apple's watch," so that's not the correct way to refer to the brand. And then to imply it's not acceptable or confusing when someone refers to "Watch and iPhone" over "Apple's watch and Apple's iPhone," is just more stupidity.
people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch.
It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.
It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.
2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?
thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
That's utter bullshit and fucking stupid. It you start saying or writing "pbp" no one is going to know what the fuck you're talking about without context. Can you show me where MBP is a "correct abbreviation" as I've never seen Apple use it and can't find it on their list of trademarks, so who the hell made it _official_? You? The point of communication is to get your damn point across so if you say iTouch instead of iPod Touch I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about in this forum without you _going grammando_.
If you say iTouch, just because we know what you mean doesn't mean you aren't using the wrong word. People use the wrong words in language all the time, despite others knowing what they mean. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what we think about it.
1) No, no it's not. There are no absolute rules in language and the rules are changing all the time. For example, do you consider ain't acceptable? If not, why?
2) Every… single… day… of your life you're using language that has changed and evolved from some earlier formation. Which, according to your "wrong is wrong" statement, would make you a hypocrite. Do you think you're a hypocrite when it comes to communication?
8) iOS is a great example. Just like with iTouch, people started using it as a contraction of iPod Touch, and because the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad all used the same OS X base forked from macOS nee Mac OS, people started calling it iOS. It wasn't until years later that Apple finally adopted iOS as their official trademark. They first referred to it as the iPhone firmware, and later as OS X iPhone and iPhone OS, before settling on the grassroots usage of iOS.
When you use a proper name, such as that of a product, it’s never acceptable to use it incorrectly. That doesn’t mean that people don’t do it, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. A name is a trademark, and is protected strongly. Using satire, it’s often distorting names, and there it’s fine. But when just referring to a product it’s not proper to say that language changes, so we can get product names wrong too, and it’s fine.
havng said that, somethings are ok. So saying iTouch is acceptable because it conveys the product. But even that’s not great, because people won’t know that it’s an iPod if they don’t already know it.
but saying iWatch in a conversation about smartwatches could be referring to a product from a competitor, as many other companies have been putting “i” in front of names for some time now, and it’s not a proper contraction, as there’s no “i” in the name anywhere to begin with.
i don’t remember anyone using iOS before Apple did. People were clumsily referring to it as the iPhone operating system, or the iPhone OS.
people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch.
It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.
It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.
2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?
thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
That's utter bullshit and fucking stupid. It you start saying or writing "pbp" no one is going to know what the fuck you're talking about without context. Can you show me where MBP is a "correct abbreviation" as I've never seen Apple use it and can't find it on their list of trademarks, so who the hell made it _official_? You? The point of communication is to get your damn point across so if you say iTouch instead of iPod Touch I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about in this forum without you _going grammando_.
If you say iTouch, just because we know what you mean doesn't mean you aren't using the wrong word. People use the wrong words in language all the time, despite others knowing what they mean. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what we think about it.
1) No, no it's not. There are no absolute rules in language and the rules are changing all the time. For example, do you consider ain't acceptable? If not, why?
2) Every… single… day… of your life you're using language that has changed and evolved from some earlier formation. Which, according to your "wrong is wrong" statement, would make you a hypocrite. Do you think you're a hypocrite when it comes to communication?
8) iOS is a great example. Just like with iTouch, people started using it as a contraction of iPod Touch, and because the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad all used the same OS X base forked from macOS nee Mac OS, people started calling it iOS. It wasn't until years later that Apple finally adopted iOS as their official trademark. They first referred to it as the iPhone firmware, and later as OS X iPhone and iPhone OS, before settling on the grassroots usage of iOS.
When you use a proper name, such as that of a product, it’s never acceptable to use it incorrectly. That doesn’t mean that people don’t do it, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. A name is a trademark, and is protected strongly. Using satire, it’s often distorting names, and there it’s fine. But when just referring to a product it’s not proper to say that language changes, so we can get product names wrong too, and it’s fine.
havng said that, somethings are ok. So saying iTouch is acceptable because it conveys the product. But even that’s not great, because people won’t know that it’s an iPod if they don’t already know it.
but saying iWatch in a conversation about smartwatches could be referring to a product from a competitor, as many other companies have been putting “i” in front of names for some time now, and it’s not a proper contraction, as there’s no “i” in the name anywhere to begin with.
i don’t remember anyone using iOS before Apple did. People were clumsily referring to it as the iPhone operating system, or the iPhone OS.
As clearly noted, you can use a "proper noun" in a different way and have it be perfectly acceptable. I'm absolutely certain you use iOS on this forum long before Apple ever made it a trademark. We also have a word for referring to people by a variation of their legal names, called nicknames. But most egregious to suggest for a nanosecond that language is some absolute construct that doesn't change. It's one of the few things that evolves faster than technology. It's fucking stupid to deny what is evidence in the entire world's history of human language. I've given you dozens of examples in this thread.
PS: I bet you're one of those grammandos that will stop a conversation to correct someone if they say Apple Phone instead of Apple iPhone. I bet you didn't use Apple's branding of "new iPad" to refer to one generation of the new iPad whenever you referred to said iPad, but the term they put out there wasn't helpful with communication. Pedentry is one thing, but an attempt at pedantry while being wrong is something else entirely.
Back to topic. This sucks. I love my iPhone 7 plus. It has largely replaced my iPad for work purposes. I don't want to run or ride my bike with it. I would be very appreciative if Apple Watch took calls (have to be accessible).
It's interesting to see confirmation that it will use an eSIM. It's a no brainer, really, since, as pointed out in the article, there's nowhere to put a slot for a SIM tray. I will be interested to see what happens with eSIM adoption as a result.
For instance, Australia is a market where the eSIM is yet to be adopted. If you buy a modern iPad with LTE, you can't use the eSIM to connect to any of the local Telcos, only to roaming services for international travel. The AppleWatch could be the product that gets Australian telcos to support the eSIM, although it wouldn't surprise me if they only support it as a limited service: only on the watch, only connected to a mobile phone plan, and so on.
One thing I'd like to see, but I suspect it won't be in the initial implementation from Apple, is tethering to the watch. It might just be because I've left my LTE modem in one too many coffee shops, though.
For me, eSIMs as standard can't come soon enough.
I quite agree. That's why I hope the LTE watch, and the potential to make an extra $5 a month out of people like me, might get Telstra and/or Optus to adopt it. Even if it does start out as restricted as I suggested above, it's a step forward, and will (hopefully) eventually lead to them allowing it across the board.
There is nothing worse than having to fiddle with little nano-SIMs and an ejector tool on the tray table of a plane when flying overseas. Hit one air pocket, and you spend the next half hour trying to reach them on the floor right by your feet... If we can't have eSIMs, then go back to the full size SIM card we had back in the early 90s.
If it doesn't replace the cell phones ability to make cell calls what good is it?
It's to small to be good for anything else...
I'd rather have google glass. It's already close to your ears, and the screen would appear much larger.
Never mind, the iwatch was really dumb idea anyways. The only thing that was cool was the heart rate monitor.
1) I don't think making phone calls is a "killer app." Hell, arguably the biggest major step for the iPhone was deprecating the Phone to just an app. Can LTE-M do phone calls effectively with its low-power, low-data rate?
2) Watch is already good at taking call without have a cellular radio—a feature I certainly don't care to use—so why is have cellular data as the next step just a bad thing?
3) If Watch is "to small to be good for anything else" then why is such a popular product and already such a huge financial success among wearable devices? Personally, it's the first thing I put on every morning and the last thing I take off at night. I'm doing really well this month with today being over a half a month of closing all my Rings as I go for a perfect month. Like Tim Cook it's helped me push toward and achieve goals, and it's nice to be able to see my progress in the 2.5 years I've been using the Watch. _No one needs an Apple Watch, and yet it's indispensable._
4) If Apple can get glucose monitoring working then we could be seeing a change from this "killer app" notion to "life saving/extending app" as more and more health functions appear. This wouldn't just be for those with diabetes, but for everyone.
5) If you really think that wearable CE are a dumb idea then you're not going to be happy about the future.
It's interesting to see confirmation that it will use an eSIM. It's a no brainer, really, since, as pointed out in the article, there's nowhere to put a slot for a SIM tray. I will be interested to see what happens with eSIM adoption as a result.
For instance, Australia is a market where the eSIM is yet to be adopted. If you buy a modern iPad with LTE, you can't use the eSIM to connect to any of the local Telcos, only to roaming services for international travel. The AppleWatch could be the product that gets Australian telcos to support the eSIM, although it wouldn't surprise me if they only support it as a limited service: only on the watch, only connected to a mobile phone plan, and so on.
One thing I'd like to see, but I suspect it won't be in the initial implementation from Apple, is tethering to the watch. It might just be because I've left my LTE modem in one too many coffee shops, though.
For me, eSIMs as standard can't come soon enough.
I quite agree. That's why I hope the LTE watch, and the potential to make an extra $5 a month out of people like me, might get Telstra and/or Optus to adopt it. Even if it does start out as restricted as I suggested above, it's a step forward, and will (hopefully) eventually lead to them allowing it across the board.
There is nothing worse than having to fiddle with little nano-SIMs and an ejector tool on the tray table of a plane when flying overseas. Hit one air pocket, and you spend the next half hour trying to reach them on the floor right by your feet... If we can't have eSIMs, then go back to the full size SIM card we had back in the early 90s.
As I noted in a previous most with a link to an article, AT&T and Verizon are offering LTE-M data plans for $1.50–$2.00/month, respectively. Melgross keeps saying $5 but I haven't seen a single article to back up that claim and discredit the article I posted.
As for Telstra and Optus, are those there official plan rates for LTE-M? It seems like the US is the one that typically has higher charges over Australia.
I do believe that Apple should make this compatible with Android. At least, make an app for Android to set and control it as well as to allow updates. Likely they would have to make it work with Google Play, and Pay as well. That’s too bad, but any Android buyer of this probably wouldn’t want to get apps from the Apple App Store, or to maintain an Apple credit card account.
still, I think they should do it because unlike the iPhone, this isn’t nearly as likely to be a gateway to other Apple products as the iPhone is, so it doesn’t need software integration as much. Considering that the phone has about a 40% user share here in the USA, and a much smaller percentage elsewhere, even among those who buy expensive Android models, it could expand sales enough to ensure its dominance.
They could move it to pairing with icloud and just change the current app to be an interface to that pairing. Then they would have full cross-platform access to almost any device you want to use as a companion. All you'd need is a web broswers with a camera. Still would be worth adding andriod native interface so it can relay notifications and calls but iCloud could give them a central any platform interface.
I do believe that Apple should make this compatible with Android. At least, make an app for Android to set and control it as well as to allow updates. Likely they would have to make it work with Google Play, and Pay as well. That’s too bad, but any Android buyer of this probably wouldn’t want to get apps from the Apple App Store, or to maintain an Apple credit card account.
still, I think they should do it because unlike the iPhone, this isn’t nearly as likely to be a gateway to other Apple products as the iPhone is, so it doesn’t need software integration as much. Considering that the phone has about a 40% user share here in the USA, and a much smaller percentage elsewhere, even among those who buy expensive Android models, it could expand sales enough to ensure its dominance.
They could move it to pairing with icloud and just change the current app to be an interface to that pairing. Then they would have full cross-platform access to almost any device you want to use as a companion. All you'd need is a web broswers with a camera. Still would be worth adding andriod native interface so it can relay notifications and calls but iCloud could give them a central any platform interface.
It already has BT. If just build an Android app to pair with Watch was something they wanted to do they could it without also forcing a cellular connection and hop through iCloud to do it.
I personally don't care if they do or don't, and could argue for both cases (which I'm sure Apple has), but it ultimately comes down to how many Watches will Apple sell for the Android users' market compared to the expense of building and supporting the app, and if by allowing Android-based devices to use the Apple Watch will it cut down on iPhone sales.
If Apple has some really amazing things coming to Watch in the future then it might behoove them to keep it on the iPhone which will help force more iPhone sales. Note that it's not just adding a simple connection to Watch—either via BT, WiFi, and/or cellular—but all the apps that are involved in the process.
There's the main, Watch app, and then there's the Activity app, and then there are plenty of other apps that are linked so you can setup on the iPhone and then have it work on the Watch without issue, like Weather, Calendar, Camera, Messages, Music, News, Photos, Reminders, Remote, Stocks, Wallet (Apple Pay), and Find my Friends. I can't imagine having to manually setup Apple Pay on Watch by typing in all the information on that small screen.
Before any of this happens, I'd think that making Watch parable with the iPad or having an iOS or iCloud app that would at least show Activity would be nice, but I also don't see that coming anytime soon, either.
people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch.
It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.
It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.
2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?
thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
That's utter bullshit and fucking stupid. It you start saying or writing "pbp" no one is going to know what the fuck you're talking about without context. Can you show me where MBP is a "correct abbreviation" as I've never seen Apple use it and can't find it on their list of trademarks, so who the hell made it _official_? You? The point of communication is to get your damn point across so if you say iTouch instead of iPod Touch I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about in this forum without you _going grammando_.
If you say iTouch, just because we know what you mean doesn't mean you aren't using the wrong word. People use the wrong words in language all the time, despite others knowing what they mean. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what we think about it.
1) No, no it's not. There are no absolute rules in language and the rules are changing all the time. For example, do you consider ain't acceptable? If not, why?
2) Every… single… day… of your life you're using language that has changed and evolved from some earlier formation. Which, according to your "wrong is wrong" statement, would make you a hypocrite. Do you think you're a hypocrite when it comes to communication?
8) iOS is a great example. Just like with iTouch, people started using it as a contraction of iPod Touch, and because the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad all used the same OS X base forked from macOS nee Mac OS, people started calling it iOS. It wasn't until years later that Apple finally adopted iOS as their official trademark. They first referred to it as the iPhone firmware, and later as OS X iPhone and iPhone OS, before settling on the grassroots usage of iOS.
When you use a proper name, such as that of a product, it’s never acceptable to use it incorrectly. That doesn’t mean that people don’t do it, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. A name is a trademark, and is protected strongly. Using satire, it’s often distorting names, and there it’s fine. But when just referring to a product it’s not proper to say that language changes, so we can get product names wrong too, and it’s fine.
havng said that, somethings are ok. So saying iTouch is acceptable because it conveys the product. But even that’s not great, because people won’t know that it’s an iPod if they don’t already know it.
but saying iWatch in a conversation about smartwatches could be referring to a product from a competitor, as many other companies have been putting “i” in front of names for some time now, and it’s not a proper contraction, as there’s no “i” in the name anywhere to begin with.
i don’t remember anyone using iOS before Apple did. People were clumsily referring to it as the iPhone operating system, or the iPhone OS.
As clearly noted, you can use a "proper noun" in a different way and have it be perfectly acceptable. I'm absolutely certain you use iOS on this forum long before Apple ever made it a trademark. We also have a word for referring to people by a variation of their legal names, called nicknames. But most egregious to suggest for a nanosecond that language is some absolute construct that doesn't change. It's one of the few things that evolves faster than technology. It's fucking stupid to deny what is evidence in the entire world's history of human language. I've given you dozens of examples in this thread.
PS: I bet you're one of those grammandos that will stop a conversation to correct someone if they say Apple Phone instead of Apple iPhone. I bet you also did use Apple's branding of "new iPad" to refer to one generation of the new iPad whenever you referred to said iPad, but the term they put out there wasn't helpful with communication. Pedentry is one thing, but an attempt at pedantry while being wrong is something else entirely.
I'm half expecting Phil Schiller to sign up for an AI forum account just to shut this conversation down.
Which people that exclusively use an Android phone are likely to purchase an Apple Watch, at least at this point?
Apple has an installed base of ~700+ million iPhone users. There is no need to go out hunting Android phone users when the user experience would not be as good - better to focus the resources on making the AW more useful to iPhone owners.
Maybe by Apple Watch Series 8 it might make sense...
people will want to make/receive regular calls if they pay monthly bills to a carrier for their iwatch.
It’s $5 a month from most carriers for an LTE smartwatch now. If it can make, and receive regular calls, what do you think the carriers will do? Likely, they’ll raise the price to at least $10 a month, which is what I pay for our iPads. And they can’t originate a regular call. They may want to charge the same as a smartphone.
It’s not iwatch. It’s Apple Watch.
1) LTE-M rates look to be between $1.50–$2.00 per month.
2) There's not wrong with calling it iWatch instead of just saying Watch or writing out Apple Watch. I refer to iOS-based devices like the iPhone and iPad as iDevices despite that not being any official branding term from Apple. We have all sorts of shorthand on this forum, like MBP for MacBook Pro. iWatch is no different.
Yeah, but it’s not the iwatch. It’s just the wrong name. I don’t see anything wrong in pointing out that it’s the wrong name, because it is. You don’t have to write it out if you’re using an Apple product because using text replacement allows you to write awatch, and have it come out as Apple Watch. I imagine other OSs allow the same thing. MBP is the correct abbreviation for Macbook Pro, which again, I have in text replacement as mbp. You wouldn’t call it the PowerBook Pro, or the pbp, would you?
thats ioT. Verizon, and others, charge $5 a month for LTE smartwatches.
I just call the Watch (cap W), which is technically correct?
If you’re saying “Apple’s watch”, it doesn’t matter, though lower case would be the correct way. It depends. If you’re saying “the watch”, that isn’t necessarily referring to it by name, so that’s ok too.but if you’re intending to use the name then it should be either Apple Watch, which is the official name, or, to abbreviate it, aWatch, or AWatch, which just looks odd.
normally, the full name or the accepted abbreviation (when easily recognizable) of a product name is acceptable. But changing it isn’t correct. I was in advertising for a number of years, and my company, after that, dealt with brand names on a regular basis. Companies can get very feisty about improper spelling and abbreviations. And Apple had a brief fight over iWatch. Whether that was a reason they didn’t use it, I don’t know. But they’re apparently through with using “i” in front of names, and I think we should honor their branding choices by using them appropriately.
Actually, on Apple's main web page, the top banner (which says "Mac", "iPad" and "iPhone") simply says "Watch".
Comments
It's interesting to see confirmation that it will use an eSIM. It's a no brainer, really, since, as pointed out in the article, there's nowhere to put a slot for a SIM tray. I will be interested to see what happens with eSIM adoption as a result.
For instance, Australia is a market where the eSIM is yet to be adopted. If you buy a modern iPad with LTE, you can't use the eSIM to connect to any of the local Telcos, only to roaming services for international travel. The AppleWatch could be the product that gets Australian telcos to support the eSIM, although it wouldn't surprise me if they only support it as a limited service: only on the watch, only connected to a mobile phone plan, and so on.
One thing I'd like to see, but I suspect it won't be in the initial implementation from Apple, is tethering to the watch. It might just be because I've left my LTE modem in one too many coffee shops, though.
normally, the full name or the accepted abbreviation (when easily recognizable) of a product name is acceptable. But changing it isn’t correct. I was in advertising for a number of years, and my company, after that, dealt with brand names on a regular basis. Companies can get very feisty about improper spelling and abbreviations. And Apple had a brief fight over iWatch. Whether that was a reason they didn’t use it, I don’t know. But they’re apparently through with using “i” in front of names, and I think we should honor their branding choices by using them appropriately.
havng said that, somethings are ok. So saying iTouch is acceptable because it conveys the product. But even that’s not great, because people won’t know that it’s an iPod if they don’t already know it.
but saying iWatch in a conversation about smartwatches could be referring to a product from a competitor, as many other companies have been putting “i” in front of names for some time now, and it’s not a proper contraction, as there’s no “i” in the name anywhere to begin with.
i don’t remember anyone using iOS before Apple did. People were clumsily referring to it as the iPhone operating system, or the iPhone OS.
iTouch: https://www.itouchtech.us/
PS: I bet you're one of those grammandos that will stop a conversation to correct someone if they say Apple Phone instead of Apple iPhone. I bet you didn't use Apple's branding of "new iPad" to refer to one generation of the new iPad whenever you referred to said iPad, but the term they put out there wasn't helpful with communication. Pedentry is one thing, but an attempt at pedantry while being wrong is something else entirely.
I quite agree. That's why I hope the LTE watch, and the potential to make an extra $5 a month out of people like me, might get Telstra and/or Optus to adopt it. Even if it does start out as restricted as I suggested above, it's a step forward, and will (hopefully) eventually lead to them allowing it across the board.
There is nothing worse than having to fiddle with little nano-SIMs and an ejector tool on the tray table of a plane when flying overseas. Hit one air pocket, and you spend the next half hour trying to reach them on the floor right by your feet... If we can't have eSIMs, then go back to the full size SIM card we had back in the early 90s.
If it doesn't replace the cell phones ability to make cell calls what good is it?
It's to small to be good for anything else...
I'd rather have google glass. It's already close to your ears, and the screen would appear much larger.
Never mind, the iwatch was really dumb idea anyways. The only thing that was cool was the heart rate monitor.
2) Watch is already good at taking call without have a cellular radio—a feature I certainly don't care to use—so why is have cellular data as the next step just a bad thing?
3) If Watch is "to small to be good for anything else" then why is such a popular product and already such a huge financial success among wearable devices? Personally, it's the first thing I put on every morning and the last thing I take off at night. I'm doing really well this month with today being over a half a month of closing all my Rings as I go for a perfect month. Like Tim Cook it's helped me push toward and achieve goals, and it's nice to be able to see my progress in the 2.5 years I've been using the Watch. _No one needs an Apple Watch, and yet it's indispensable._
4) If Apple can get glucose monitoring working then we could be seeing a change from this "killer app" notion to "life saving/extending app" as more and more health functions appear. This wouldn't just be for those with diabetes, but for everyone.
5) If you really think that wearable CE are a dumb idea then you're not going to be happy about the future.
As for Telstra and Optus, are those there official plan rates for LTE-M? It seems like the US is the one that typically has higher charges over Australia.
Still would be worth adding andriod native interface so it can relay notifications and calls but iCloud could give them a central any platform interface.
I personally don't care if they do or don't, and could argue for both cases (which I'm sure Apple has), but it ultimately comes down to how many Watches will Apple sell for the Android users' market compared to the expense of building and supporting the app, and if by allowing Android-based devices to use the Apple Watch will it cut down on iPhone sales.
If Apple has some really amazing things coming to Watch in the future then it might behoove them to keep it on the iPhone which will help force more iPhone sales. Note that it's not just adding a simple connection to Watch—either via BT, WiFi, and/or cellular—but all the apps that are involved in the process.
There's the main, Watch app, and then there's the Activity app, and then there are plenty of other apps that are linked so you can setup on the iPhone and then have it work on the Watch without issue, like Weather, Calendar, Camera, Messages, Music, News, Photos, Reminders, Remote, Stocks, Wallet (Apple Pay), and Find my Friends. I can't imagine having to manually setup Apple Pay on Watch by typing in all the information on that small screen.
Before any of this happens, I'd think that making Watch parable with the iPad or having an iOS or iCloud app that would at least show Activity would be nice, but I also don't see that coming anytime soon, either.
http://www.businessinsider.com/plural-apple-product-names-iphone-ipad-macintosh-2016-4
Apple has an installed base of ~700+ million iPhone users. There is no need to go out hunting Android phone users when the user experience would not be as good - better to focus the resources on making the AW more useful to iPhone owners.
Maybe by Apple Watch Series 8 it might make sense...