Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Outlines Smart Wristband with Phone Connectivity and Gesture Control in New Patent

thekeyring said:
Smartwatches don't seem to replace traditional watches. In the same way we still have landline phones as well as iPhones.

People who want jewellery or a nice timepiece are not necessarily the same people who will buy an iWatch.
Click to expand...

So are you saying this is a watch for the other arm?

Or are you saying this is a watch to be worn some of the time subbed out by other, traditional watches the rest of the time?

If this iWatch is to be the next iPhone or iPad (in terms of next-big-thing impact), the masses will have to adopt it like they adopted iPhones and iPads. Neither of those were part-time substitutes for regular cell phones or regular tablets, nor were they phones or tablets for the other ear or hand.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
So are you saying this is a watch for the other arm?

Or are you saying this is a watch to be worn some of the time subbed out by other, traditional watches the rest of the time?

If this iWatch is to be the next iPhone or iPad (in terms of next-big-thing impact), the masses will have to adopt it like they adopted iPhones and iPads. Neither of those were part-time substitutes for regular cell phones or regular tablets, nor were they phones or tablets for the other ear or hand.
Click to expand...

Both of those were part-time substitutes for regular computers.
 
bushido said:
Casio inspired? ;) heard they r in style again
Click to expand...

What about Casio ? Apple wishes they could have made smart capacitive touch screen watches in the '80 like casio did.

And in the present Casio has several innovations in the expensive analog watches field.
 
nando87 said:
Both of those were part-time substitutes for regular computers.
Click to expand...

I think that's very different. There was already a HUGE healthy market of cellular phone buyers before iPhone. Yes, many of them may have also owned computers but I bet they bought iPhone to replace a cell phone they already owned, not giving much thought to it replacing the computer they already owned too. Did it end up being usable for many previously computer-only chores? Sure, but I wonder how many of them don't have a computer to this very day. I use my iDevices A LOT but I type this on an iMac parked next to a Macbook Pro.

I have to believe the iWatch is aimed at being an alternative or replacement for watches, not- say- the clocks in their home. Per the rumors, it doesn't appear it's an alternative for an iPhone in their pocket. And I doubt it can be spun that IT can be an alternative for the computers in their homes.
 
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl said:
If this iWatch is to be the next iPhone or iPad (in terms of next-big-thing impact), the masses will have to adopt it like they adopted iPhones and iPads. Neither of those were part-time substitutes for regular cell phones or regular tablets, nor were they phones or tablets for the other ear or hand.
Click to expand...

And do you know what the masses don't wear right now?

Watches.

Remember reading an article offering advice for middle-aged people seeking jobs in Silicon Valley. Piece of advice that stuck out - Don't wear a watch.

There are people who wear watches primarily as jewelry. They are not the market for this watch. Neither are people who wear wristbands or bracelets for decoration.

The market is people who don't wear watches, or only wear them for certain activities (fitness watches). And that's a huge and ever-growing market.
 
I just don't see that in my experience. I was just in NYC this weekend- a relatively crowded city. And this topic was on my mind so I was paying attention to arms. There were lots of them. Did I see some people NOT wearing a watch? Yes. Was it a lot of people? No. I would subjectively say that most people were wearing watches. Getting to and from there had me in some crowded airports. Again, while I certainly saw watch-less arms, it seemed most arms were adorned with watches of all shapes, sizes, colors, materials, etc.

Maybe the diversity of NYC and international airports is not representative of all people everywhere. So maybe there is a huge market of people who don't wear watches now who will then decide to flip that stance so they can wear an iWatch? I'll buy that. But then, I go right back to the jewelry issue. If someone who doesn't wear a watch is then moved to want to wear one, do they want to wear the exact same watch that "everybody" else is wearing? If watches are jewelry and if "we" are accustomed to a great diversity of design in that particular kind of jewelry (and we are), how are we happy at abandoning that accumulated diversity to "comply" with a singular design… even one from Apple?

That worked with iPhone and iPad because there wasn't 100+ years of smart phone & tablet design diversity before them. Can that work with an iWatch competing against a century of exposure to a huge diversity of design? Here (the opinions of those who frequent this site), the answer should be a resounding "yes" (because "we" will buy anything new branded by Apple) but the issue is getting the masses beyond here on board… on par with the impact of an iPhone or iPad. Do the masses that don't worship at the alter of Apple forego their subjective design tastes in watches to all comply with a single design or two by Apple?
 
Last edited:
Dekema2 said:
It's square, ugh!!!
Click to expand...

They never put the actual designs of the products in patent illustrations. It's there only to help explain the concept being patented. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Apple has a history of putting in some particularly unwieldy placeholder art in their patents.

----------
keysofanxiety said:
Well, sadly with this patent goes my previous optimistic prediction of Apple pushing the boat out with 3D technology. :( Don't I feel stupid. If this is anything like the Galaxy Gear I think it's fair to say we'll all be extremely disappointed ...
Click to expand...

3D is, and always will be, a novelty. I have yet to see any application of it where it serves an actual purpose and solves an actual problem. It's there to wow people and that's about it.

Besides, you have to remember that the one thing Apple always has over the competition is the device integration and the ecosystem. Something like this that seamlessly interacts with other Apple products and can talk to various iOS and OS X apps would be the start of something pretty cool.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
So are you saying this is a watch for the other arm?

Or are you saying this is a watch to be worn some of the time subbed out by other, traditional watches the rest of the time?

If this iWatch is to be the next iPhone or iPad (in terms of next-big-thing impact), the masses will have to adopt it like they adopted iPhones and iPads. Neither of those were part-time substitutes for regular cell phones or regular tablets, nor were they phones or tablets for the other ear or hand.
Click to expand...

I mean, traditional watches are not worn by everyone. Like Tim Cook said in an interview, most people use their iPhone to tell time, and wear nothing on their wrist.
 
Last edited:
OK, I don't see those "most" people when I'm out and about (such as in NYC this past weekend and in major airports last week and this week). Do some people do that? Sure. But "most" means more than "some".

Nevertheless, why is an iWatch going to change that behavior? If they don't want to wear a watch now because they can tell time with their iPhones, why do they want to add a watch then when they will still have their iPhones?

And, by the way, what a CEO says doesn't always prove out. Jobs: "Why do people want video on an iPod?" is one good example. Here's some too: http://www.techlicious.com/blog/5-big-flip-flops-from-apple/ If you do some searching, you can find many more.

If Cook actually believes that, why is Apple apparently making a watch? What can it do that that iPhone in their pocket can't? All I've seen is these rumors of various health sensors, which probably could be engineered into an iPhone but probably works best (or at all) with direct contact with the skin. OK. That's something. How excited are the masses about that? Is there some application of that? Sure! But is that enough to motivate compliance with a single design or two? I don't know. When I personally think about that part of the rumor, I think of this more as a health bracelet than a watch replacement. And then I struggle to seeing the masses jumping on this.

The ONE scenario that kind of makes sense to me goes like this:
-what is Apple's bread & butter product? The iPhone
-why is it so valuable to Apple? Most of Apple's profit is in that one product.
-how is it so profitable? It's subsidized so that it can be apparently priced as cheap as free* while still getting Apple paid by others at the full price with full margin
-what else could have that very lucrative, subsidy model? Ever notice all the medical tracking stuff pitched as free* in commercials on television? In that case, it's medicare or insurance that pays the subsidy to support the free* price.

With that chain of thought, I wonder if this iWatch concept is taking a crack at a new subsidized product model. If so, the iWatch might be able to be priced cheap* or free* yet Apple still gets paid a profitable, full price by another group of companies and the government via insurance or medicare.

iPhone didn't sell well to the masses when it first launched and Apple was trying to get the public to pay full price up front for it. Only when the subsidy model was adopted did it roar (and Apple still fully got theirs). If I'm Apple, one of the things I do is look for where else I could replicate that very same arrangement. One place is definitely these free* medical products. Jam a number of those into something like a watch and kill 6-10 birds with one stone. Subsidized make the price too good to be true. The masses adopt it. That it might also be a watch or maybe have some iPhone alert and app functions is an added bonus. It's cooler than similarly cheap or free watches that are just watches, so the masses forego style diversity to have the coolest (seemingly) cheap watch around.

While that's an odd idea, that's the path to the masses that I can see for something like an iWatch. Probably won't happen but maybe that's the play.
 
Last edited:
People, this is a utility patent, not a design patent. Beyond the device's functionality, the drawings do not necessarily indicate anything about the actual design of the product.

----------
HobeSoundDarryl said:
If they don't want to wear a watch now because they can tell time with their iPhones, why do they want to add a watch then when they will still have their iPhones?
Click to expand...

The idea is that the iPhone is a device that does a ton of stuff in addition to telling time, that people use their iPhones as surrogate-watches because they use their phones all the time anyway. It's hard to deny the functionality and convenience of glancing at your wrist for the time as opposed to reaching in your pocket, pulling out your phone, struggling if your pockets are tight, pressing the lock or home button, and then seeing the time. People just want more from their watches - not just a device that tells time.

That said, I do believe that most watches nowadays are worn mainly for fashion and/or class distinction. iTimes will never replace Rolexes.
 
The modular design is very intriguing, it means among other things that this watch can become many different things.

the iPhone replaces a compass, a flashlight, a digital recorder, camcorder, camera, note pad, clock, and a lot of other stuff.

The iPad replaces many functions of a book, a computer, a music player, a sketchpad, and other stuff.

So the iWatch (or whatever) is going to do the same, do the functions of a watch but also a barometer, a sleep monitor, a pedometer, a gps locator, a pulsox monitor, a Nike fuel band, and take some of the job of a smart phone, have messaging, and do a bunch of other stuff way beyond the idea of a watch.
 
Young people don't wear watches, predominately speaking. In the twenty something's crowd, it almost seems pointless, especially considering not many are wearing Rolex's at this point in life. Are there some people in their twenty's who wear watches? Yes, I guess so, but they are definitely in the minority.

So the problem is, how are you going to get those people to wear a watch? I think Apple views the 18-35 crowd as it's bread and butter. You get that group to adopt a product on a wide scale, and you'll be successful because the other age groups will then "fall in line" and equally adopt the product. If the product does not catch on with that age group, but does catch on with the 40-60 year old crowd or young kids, then the product will be a failure, and the product will gain a status of "uncoolness" or "unhipness" that will be close to impossible to overcome. Not to mention the 18-35 crowd is generally the most technologically advanced, broadly speaking of course.

So somehow Apple needs to develop a wearable product that gets a mass group of people to wear something they are currently not wearing, it needs to be subtle enough to make that market wear it, and it needs to be so far advanced technologically speaking that those in that market could care less if everyone else has one, because it provides such a potentially substantial improvement to their day to day lives.

All of that seems like a very hard task to me.. And so far it seems the only thing that could accomplish such a product would be to have a band that could somehow holographically illuminate above the watch face. They make that, they have a hit, everyone will want one and wear one. If they don't, all bets are off IMO. Would love to hear others opinions on this.
 
This is the one thing I was curious about with a possible iWatch. I would want to be able to wear an iWatch for outdoor activities as well as for normal day-to-day activities (i.e. work, dinner, etc.). IMO, a dress watch needs to be metallic, however - it is simply uncomfortable in sweaty conditions.

I possibly wouldn't buy at all if the watch is not modular. If it is an option, purchasing multiple bands = more profit for Apple. I obviously don't know what the physical limitations are, but this would seem to be an ideal solution.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
I think that's very different. There was already a HUGE healthy market of cellular phone buyers before iPhone. Yes, many of them may have also owned computers but I bet they bought iPhone to replace a cell phone they already owned, not giving much thought to it replacing the computer they already owned too. Did it end up being usable for many previously computer-only chores? Sure, but I wonder how many of them don't have a computer to this very day. I use my iDevices A LOT but I type this on an iMac parked next to a Macbook Pro.

I have to believe the iWatch is aimed at being an alternative or replacement for watches, not- say- the clocks in their home. Per the rumors, it doesn't appear it's an alternative for an iPhone in their pocket. And I doubt it can be spun that IT can be an alternative for the computers in their homes.
Click to expand...

Like the iPhone and iPad before, this will not be a "replacement" device (and Apple's not going after the watch/time telling device market - too narrow).
Apple's wrist device will do for the already established fitness band market what they did for the already established mobile phone market and the already established tablet market: re-de-fine. Turn it on it's head. This is going to be huge for reasons few seem to be discussing or considering. The hardware (while likely to, in typical Apple fashion, amaze) is the Trojan hose to a much larger vision. The supporting ecosystem is what will really drive social change. We will see an influx of health-related apps/experiences that will redefine the relationship between patient and caregiver. Empowering the patient with the tools/data needed to better mange their personal health. Quickly grow less dependent on large health care providers. And like the mobile phone and tablet industries before, the health care industry will also be caught flat footed. It's should be entertaining watching them scramble. Could be a big win for the consumer.

Only time will tell.
*giggle*
 
Sounds wonderful. So are you envisioning this device replacing watches or being worn in addition to them?

If it replaces, how does all that resolve the jewelry diversity design (one design fits all) issue?

Care to elaborate on what that "much larger vision" might be and how this thing might "really drive social change"?
 
Last edited:
Rogifan said:
A black bar :p

moto-360-customization-2.jpg


moto-360-3.png


android-wear-moto-360-close-up-578-80.jpg
Click to expand...

Aren't those sensors?
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
OK, I don't see those "most" people when I'm out and about (such as in NYC this past weekend and in major airports last week and this week). Do some people do that? Sure. But "most" means more than "some".

Nevertheless, why is an iWatch going to change that behavior? If they don't want to wear a watch now because they can tell time with their iPhones, why do they want to add a watch then when they will still have their iPhones?

And, by the way, what a CEO says doesn't always prove out. Jobs: "Why do people want video on an iPod?" is one good example. Here's some too: http://www.techlicious.com/blog/5-big-flip-flops-from-apple/ If you do some searching, you can find many more.

If Cook actually believes that, why is Apple apparently making a watch? What can it do that that iPhone in their pocket can't? All I've seen is these rumors of various health sensors, which probably could be engineered into an iPhone but probably works best (or at all) with direct contact with the skin. OK. That's something. How excited are the masses about that? Is there some application of that? Sure! But is that enough to motivate compliance with a single design or two? I don't know. When I personally think about that part of the rumor, I think of this more as a health bracelet than a watch replacement. And then I struggle to seeing the masses jumping on this.

The ONE scenario that kind of makes sense to me goes like this:
-what is Apple's bread & butter product? The iPhone
-why is it so valuable to Apple? Most of Apple's profit is in that one product.
-how is it so profitable? It's subsidized so that it can be apparently priced as cheap as free* while still getting Apple paid by others at the full price with full margin
-what else could have that very lucrative, subsidy model? Ever notice all the medical tracking stuff pitched as free* in commercials on television? In that case, it's medicare or insurance that pays the subsidy to support the free* price.

With that chain of thought, I wonder if this iWatch concept is taking a crack at a new subsidized product model. If so, the iWatch might be able to be priced cheap* or free* yet Apple still gets paid a profitable, full price by another group of companies and the government via insurance or medicare.

iPhone didn't sell well to the masses when it first launched and Apple was trying to get the public to pay full price up front for it. Only when the subsidy model was adopted did it roar (and Apple still fully got theirs). If I'm Apple, one of the things I do is look for where else I could replicate that very same arrangement. One place is definitely these free* medical products. Jam a number of those into something like a watch and kill 6-10 birds with one stone. Subsidized make the price too good to be true. The masses adopt it. That it might also be a watch or maybe have some iPhone alert and app functions is an added bonus. It's cooler than similarly cheap or free watches that are just watches, so the masses forego style diversity to have the coolest (seemingly) cheap watch around.

While that's an odd idea, that's the path to the masses that I can see for something like an iWatch. Probably won't happen but maybe that's the play.
Click to expand...

I know what CEOs say aren't always truthful. But Tim cook did address the issue saying 'to convince people who don't wear a watch to wear one, it would have to be really good'.

I also understand that you can't see what an iwatch can be, and neither can I.
However, it's not my job to, and the people at Apple seem (if the rumors are true) to be on to something.

Remember: listing features for an iPad 1 vs netbooks lead a lot of people to believe the iPad would fail.

When the iPhone was first released, no one knew what it would become.

I think that's what people are most intrigued by. What, in an age where people use their phones for the time, is the point of having a smart watch. What will apple release?

To say 'there's no point in a smart watch' is short sighted just because you personally can't see a point in one. If it wasn't going to be a good product, apple wouldn't release it. It would be far easier to satisfy analysts craving for a new category by releasing a TV revamp than a watch no one wants to buy. So, again, my question is: what are apple working on that will make the naysayers eat their words? Or, cause the critics to moan while still selling in huge numbers?
 
LordVic said:
I get that this is a technical limitation of the display since its a round screen and they needed to put some of the workings somewhere...

but I'm hoping that as technology advances they can get rid of it.

Its the first real smart watch that at least doesn't look like something you'd get beat up over in highschool'
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Nothing has been released. Or shown. Or leaked. Or anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back