mac_128

macplusplus said:

mac_128 said:

designr said:

Soli said:

designr said:

This is kinda of typical Apple.

I'll bet if you asked internally this (Series 4) is the watch they wanted to do all along. It just took time to get there.

I think we saw the same with the iPhone 4 or 5.

Where do you make the demarcation point? I'm sure there aspects of this design that never came up in the original meetings because the tech wasn't there or simply no one even considered it. I suspect that a single-lead EKG and a rounded display, weren't on the drawing 7 years ago?

And then there probably things that they had considered in the original meetings that still haven't come to fruition. Waterproofing, GPS, cellular, and an altimeter are all things that didn't make the first model, but could've been on the drawing board from day—but those all in it in now so those would count. We'll have to wait until next year to get better comparisons, but I'd think some non-invasive blood sugar or O2 level checks could've been on the drawing board when they started their multi-year health initiative before the Series 0 was introduced.

Personally, I compare it more to the iPhone 5 or series than to the iPhone 4 since it started with a Retina device, but the display increase in size YoY. Or perhaps even the iPhone X since the display area in relation to its footprint increased in size YoY.

The demarcation point is unknown to all of us outside. But I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that Apple has a roadmap based on technologies and manufacturing capabilities it knows will be there but aren't yet. Of course plans change as well.

What I meant was that with Series 0 they did what they could but knew they had better plans and ideas that simply weren't possible (at least cost-effectively) at that time but they knew they's be able to get there in a few years. Based on my experience, most products follow this kind of path: First you get something out there (and, granted, Apple's first "something" is often better than other's second or third "something"...but you have lots of plans and ideas for the next few versions...some of which is, in the case of hardware products, waiting on things to be ready. As an example I actually suspect the display was on their minds years ago.

I’m looking at the seriously rounded corners of the new design and personally see a round model option coming just about the time the square model hits market saturation and people will be looking to change it up, or stand out from the herd. If that’s what Apple wants to do, this new display makes that easily possible.

I agree, those rounded corners and the new faces with a lot of complications are interesting.

Gnomic said:

It appears that all versions of the Apple Watch Series 4 have a sapphire crystal. In Series 3 the aluminum versions feature Ion-X glass.

See the section "What's in your Apple Watch" in this support document titled "Wearing your Apple Watch".  There is no mention of Ion-X glass for any Series 4 watch:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204665

This is a nice upgrade for Series 4 aluminum watches that none of the reviews I read have mentioned.

designr said:

Soli said:

designr said:

This is kinda of typical Apple.

I'll bet if you asked internally this (Series 4) is the watch they wanted to do all along. It just took time to get there.

I think we saw the same with the iPhone 4 or 5.

Where do you make the demarcation point? I'm sure there aspects of this design that never came up in the original meetings because the tech wasn't there or simply no one even considered it. I suspect that a single-lead EKG and a rounded display, weren't on the drawing 7 years ago?

And then there probably things that they had considered in the original meetings that still haven't come to fruition. Waterproofing, GPS, cellular, and an altimeter are all things that didn't make the first model, but could've been on the drawing board from day—but those all in it in now so those would count. We'll have to wait until next year to get better comparisons, but I'd think some non-invasive blood sugar or O2 level checks could've been on the drawing board when they started their multi-year health initiative before the Series 0 was introduced.

Personally, I compare it more to the iPhone 5 or series than to the iPhone 4 since it started with a Retina device, but the display increase in size YoY. Or perhaps even the iPhone X since the display area in relation to its footprint increased in size YoY.

The demarcation point is unknown to all of us outside. But I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that Apple has a roadmap based on technologies and manufacturing capabilities it knows will be there but aren't yet. Of course plans change as well.

What I meant was that with Series 0 they did what they could but knew they had better plans and ideas that simply weren't possible (at least cost-effectively) at that time but they knew they's be able to get there in a few years. Based on my experience, most products follow this kind of path: First you get something out there (and, granted, Apple's first "something" is often better than other's second or third "something"...but you have lots of plans and ideas for the next few versions...some of which is, in the case of hardware products, waiting on things to be ready. As an example I actually suspect the display was on their minds years ago.

AF_Hitt said:

The problem I have, and many people have, with my Apple Watch is I can’t wear it for most of my time at work, as I work in an area where portable electronic devices are not permitted. I regularly hit my exercise and calorie goals because I can wear it while working out, but never once hit my stand goal because I never have it on during the day. What would a company like John Hancock say when they look at that information? To them, they’d see me as sitting on a couch for the vast majority of the day and being active for only an hour or so. Not sure how that would play out with a policy like this.

chasm said:

There was a “leaked” case design out a little while back that had a hole in the back (just “above” the Lightning port on the back of the case) that would have been the right size for a USB-C port ... it was widely misinterpreted as a Smart Connector hole, but it couldn’t be that (smart connectors are flush with the body). https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/24/ipad-pro-cover-leak-shows-opening-for-rumored-new-smart-connector-location

wizard69 said:

jbdragon said:

There is no way Apple is changing over to a USB-C port. ZERO reason to do so!!! There's still cable issues with USB-C.

Now I can see Apple including a USB-C to Lighting Cable and include a Fast Charger with the iPad, and stop with forcing people to buy that stuff separately.

But still, External, maybe that's 4K AirPlay to a 4K AppleTV? Apple is all about going Wireless as much as they can. Why a silly adapter and a cable going to the display?

Wireless is not always the most reliable approach to a communications or power issue.   It would be great if it where to happen for some use cases but there are just as many use cases where wireless does nothing for the application.   I've seen iPads used in all sorts of places where a plain old wired connection is the smart approach.   Just one example are iPads programmed to be a time card machine replacements.