Apple Watch 2 Rumored to Include Cellular Connectivity Amid Push for iPhone Independency

[jigzaw]

I can see the attraction of a cellular/independent Watch, but having an iPhone plan is expensive enough. I truly don't see myself wanting yet another monthly cellular fee unless it's like an extra dollar or two a month added onto my existing line or like the Kindle is provided free of charge (not Apple's style, alas). Also, ya know, isn't the question still kind of open about cellular radiation's effect on the body? You really want to be wearing one of those?

 

[Homer69]

In a new article centered on the first-year sales of the Apple Watch, The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple is working on including cellular network connectivity and a faster processor in the so-called Apple Watch 2.

The addition of standalone cell-network connectivity onto the wrist-worn device could bring some benefits to users, particularly those who are frustrated with the current generation's heavy reliance on a tethered iPhone to provide basic iMessage and phone call functionality. Although such a feature would undoubtedly require an additional data plan, on top of one they might already have for both the iPhone and iPad, benefits like using GPS, making phone calls, and streaming Apple Music without an iPhone nearby could outweigh the cons for some users.

The new hints given for the next-generation Apple Watch come on the heels of a collection of rumors that point to the upcoming version of Apple's wearable gaining much-requested independence from the iPhone. Apple began implementing a third-party push for iPhone independency by announcing that all watchOS apps submitted to the App Store after June 1, 2016 will be required to be native applications.

Such updates to watchOS, which Apple introduced in watchOS 2, allow the wearable device to open apps more quickly and provide a smoother experience to users, instead of having to transmit data back and forth between a Bluetooth-connected iPhone. The mention of "a faster processor" in today's report is something largely expected from a product update cycle by Apple, but it should compound the company's efforts to introduce an all-around faster UI for the Apple Watch 2.

Using speculative analyst analysis, The Wall Street Journal also compared the first year of the Apple Watch to the first year sales run of the iPhone, from 2007 to 2008. The analyst estimate puts Apple Watch sales at 12 million units from its launch on April 24, 2015 to the same day in 2016. That number is double the original iPhone's sales of 6 million units in its first year.

The latest rumors for the Apple Watch 2 conflict somewhat in regards to upgrade stats and release dates. One report has suggested that the new wearable will be 40 percent thinner and launch as soon as June, while a more recent research note from KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo points to only minor form factor changes and a heavier focus on internal improvements. Kuo predicted the Apple Watch 2 will launch in the fall, alongside the iPhone 7.

Article Link: Apple Watch 2 Rumored to Include Cellular Connectivity Amid Push for iPhone Independency

It only makes sense to untether the waych from the iphone to gain market
Share. Besides, if people want to try out the watch, it is imperatively costly to purchase both.

 

[twolf2919]

Good developments. Im sure many people would sometime like to leave their phones at home and still have connectivity when they go out, say for a coffee.

Grab keys and walk out.

That said, personally, im still not interested in the device.

*Many* people? Really? I don't know of anyone who wants to leave their phones at home "and still have connectivity". Just like you always take your keys, you take your phone! No pocket? Where do you put your house keys?

I see see close to zero use cases for a cell-connected/standalone smartwatch. It's pretty much just the very limited domain of of Dick Tracy loving gadget nuts. Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the smartwatch (my wife and I have Apple Watches) but see it as strictly an accessory, not a standalone device.

 

[DotCom2]

Well, perhaps an "Apple Data Plan" for Apple devices some day? All your devices draining from one lake? One subscription, one plan, one price?

If only...

 

[Johnny907]

Guess this is Apple trying a simcard less device, no popping in a cheap local sim when you cross the border

They already tried that with the new 9.7" iPad Pro, which has Apple's new E-SIM built in.

 

[ziggie216]

cellular version sound great, but then I wonder how much that will impact battery life.

 

[name99]

So many stupid comments about talking into a watch face. FFS nobody would do that. Everyone would use a wireless headset just like many people do now.

Why not? You use speakerphone, don't you? (Not when people are around, but in your home or office...)

What makes speakerphone work well is multiple microphones (3 on current iPhones; Intel says you really should have 4 and is trying to push that on high end laptops) and some DSP magic.
Right now (as far as I know) there is a single mic on the Apple watch, but 3 or even 4 mics is obviously possible, as is the DSP magic, at which point you just need to talk naturally, moving your arm however you like, and the mic system should just work. I certainly hope that watch2 has a minimum of 2 mics (far from ideal, but a lot better than 1).

The other problem is the speaker and that may be more difficult to deal with. IF (and who knows...) Apple is willing to maintain the existing phone volume (ie no attempts to make it thinner) but has much smaller electronics (because of 16nmFF) and a slightly smaller battery (because more efficient electronics) then it could presumably increase the speaker volume. Alternatively, they might be able to couple the speaker to the screen to boost the volume. On a phone/tablet this is problematic because you can see/feel the moving screen and it seems weird, but on a watch that's probably much less of a problem.

 

[IJ Reilly]

They should never have called it a "watch".

Terribly restrictive product name, and an out-and-out boring profile for many people.

An old-fashioned name, for an old-fashioned device, used by old-fashioned people.

Apple's marketing has plummeted.

Agreed. I was astonished when Apple decided to call their wearable a watch. The name connotes ancient technology instead of something new, and burdened the device with watch-spectations, such as, it has to be round.

 

[Soccertess]

I really like the concept, but I don't want to pay 5 dollars month or more for connectivity. These carriers will try and milk it as much as they can!

 

[Johnny907]

Don't so much need cellular data as much as stand alone GPS functionality, personally. The outdoor workout tracking functionality is severely hampered when used without an iPhone, which makes wearing the thing kind of redundant since my goal was to limit gadgets I have to bring along when I hike/bike/jog.

 

[allenvanhellen]

You can already send messages without a phone!! You need known wifi, but your phone can be off or somewhere else, and you can use all iCloud services. The article says you can't.

 

[McCool71]

Reeeaaaalllllyyyyyy and tell me, just WHEN did you last see people walking around wearing bluetooth headsets then? I think taxi drivers use them so I'll give you that, are you a taxi driver?

What an odd comment, I see people using headsets every day for much more than just listening to music or podcasts.

I use a bluetooth headset for almost every single call I make, have done for years. Don't think I could ever go back to a wired headset or to just using the phone.

There are lots and lots of benefits compared to holding your phone up to your ear. Your hands are free and it is way easier to listen in noisy environments. And guess what - you can use them for listening to music as well.

 

[stevefeinstein]

Maybe they could include a battery that lasts longer than 1.5 days ...

Bought a Pebble a couple of weeks ago. It does 90% of what the Apple Watch does, costs a fraction and has a battery that lasts a week. And they don't exclude devs from accessing all the features.

Kinetic Charging?

 

[MikePLP]

Lol at the haters. One of their main criticisms was that it was dependent on the iPhone. Now That it's independent (if the rumor is true), they say who cares. Lulz.

 

[XTheLancerX]

No clue how this is going to have any usable battery if it has to deal with finding and holding cell signals. Cellular usage even tanks my iPhone's battery, no matter the strength of the signal, let alone a tiny watch.

 

[TouchMint.com]

I worry about battery too! Maybe they will announce their wireless charging and all our problems will be solved!

 

[jlo1158]

So you would be willing to pay for two cellular connections? iPhone + Apple Watch?
Just for those few times you could run out without the phone?
If it can't fully replace my smartphone why do I need LTE? The cost per year would be prohibitive.

What's the deal? I thought IPhone owners were rich. I use Android. I also have a cellular S2. Most of the time I carry a second phone also.
[doublepost=1461623842][/doublepost]

Reeeaaaalllllyyyyyy and tell me, just WHEN did you last see people walking around wearing bluetooth headsets then? I think taxi drivers use them so I'll give you that, are you a taxi driver?

Your solution is also stupid, you are saying why not use cellular on your tiny watch, then use bluetooth too to connect a headset to it at the same time! Wow, what's your target for battery life? An hour?

Surely you're heard the rumor of Apple dropping the headphone jack. It seems to me that most people's solution is to use a Bluetooth headset. My Jabra Rox headset will pair to two devices.

 

[apolloa]

What an odd comment, I see people using headsets every day for much more than just listening to music or podcasts.

I use a bluetooth headset for almost every single call I make, have done for years. Don't think I could ever go back to a wired headset or to just using the phone.

There are lots and lots of benefits compared to holding your phone up to your ear. Your hands are free and it is way easier to listen in noisy environments. And guess what - you can use them for listening to music as well.

I do not know of anyone who uses them. And it may be fine for a phone, but adding bluetooth headsets to a tiny watch along with cellular functions will only lead to really pathetic battery life.

 

[lionsy]

It's weird this thread isn't overflowing with the following comment already, but...

The only thing that will make me replace my current Apple Watch is if the battery life is better - The quality of the battery has already significantly degraded since I purchased it and it was already rubbish - If I disable everything, all the tracking, everything, I get two days of life without charging, I'd be happy with that if I didn't have to disable everything to do it! I just want to be able to go out with it on and forget to charge it over night and still get all day battery life the next day.

A device that leaves no room for error when it comes to charging it every day is not as fun to use as it should be, form over function is not an argument we should be having for a watch.

 

[jlo1158]

No clue how this is going to have any usable battery if it has to deal with finding and holding cell signals. Cellular usage even tanks my iPhone's battery, no matter the strength of the signal, let alone a tiny watch.

My S2 lasts all day. It has cellular.

 

[apolloa]

Surely you're heard the rumor of Apple dropping the headphone jack. It seems to me that most people's solution is to use a Bluetooth headset. My Jabra Rox headset will pair to two devices.

And again, do you see people using their headsets now to make calls or to listen to music? How many do you think would use them with a watch as opposed to an iPhone?

 

[jlo1158]

And again, do you see people using their headsets now to make calls or to listen to music? How many do you think would use them with a watch as opposed to an iPhone?

Considering bluetooth 4 is low energy why would there be a problem? Yes I do see people using them. I talk on my S2 in the grocery store and no one even turns their heads. I used to have the Motorola Sliver (think that's spelled correctly ). It was small enough to be barely noticeable. Now my hearing aids are bluetooth. When I wear them that is.

 

[69650]

So that we have to charge one more device? Now we can take calls on our phones, iPads, Macs, Apple Watches, and Bluetooth headsets. Why would I want a headset if all those other devices can take calls? It's just one more thing to pair to your iPhone, remember to charge, and remember to wear every day. Plus headsets look straight out of 2005. The only people I see that wear headsets anymore are the 60+ year old crowd.

Nobody is forcing you to buy any or all of those devices. If all you need is an iPhone and nothing else then all you need is one cable.
[doublepost=1461625855][/doublepost]

Why not? You use speakerphone, don't you? (Not when people are around, but in your home or office...)

What makes speakerphone work well is multiple microphones (3 on current iPhones; Intel says you really should have 4 and is trying to push that on high end laptops) and some DSP magic.
Right now (as far as I know) there is a single mic on the Apple watch, but 3 or even 4 mics is obviously possible, as is the DSP magic, at which point you just need to talk naturally, moving your arm however you like, and the mic system should just work. I certainly hope that watch2 has a minimum of 2 mics (far from ideal, but a lot better than 1).

The other problem is the speaker and that may be more difficult to deal with. IF (and who knows...) Apple is willing to maintain the existing phone volume (ie no attempts to make it thinner) but has much smaller electronics (because of 16nmFF) and a slightly smaller battery (because more efficient electronics) then it could presumably increase the speaker volume. Alternatively, they might be able to couple the speaker to the screen to boost the volume. On a phone/tablet this is problematic because you can see/feel the moving screen and it seems weird, but on a watch that's probably much less of a problem.

No actually I don't use a speaker phone at home or in the office. I use a wireless headset so I can take calls wherever I am. It's light, comfortable and has a 6 hour talk time so it doesn't run out of battery during the day.
[doublepost=1461626936][/doublepost]

And again, do you see people using their headsets now to make calls or to listen to music? How many do you think would use them with a watch as opposed to an iPhone?

I see lots of people talking into their white iPhone headphones. Apple would simply release a set of wireless headphones to go with the Apple Watch. There are already lots of rumours that Apple will switch to wireless headphones if they remove the headphone jack from the iPhone 7. I don't see any reason why people wouldn't continue to use them as before to either listen to music or make/receive calls.

 

[michaelz]

Apple is behind on smart watch. They better think outside of box quick before I switch to LG Watch Urbane 2.

 

[deviant]

That's the beauty of it. It's a seamless blend of timeless watch design with modern technology. I don't hate the Apple Watch, in fact I do like its design a lot. The thing is that it looks like a shrunken down computer monitor strapped to your wrist. It doesn't look like a watch.

it isn't supposed to look like a classic watch. if everything had to be classic design with new tech inside we would be using some goofy looking smartphones i'll tell you that