Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So you want a watch that does everything an iPhone does and expect it to last for more than a day?

Yes, my old nokia lasted a week and was great but all it did was make phone calls and send texts.
 
No my new small Nokia phone with colour screen & flashlight also!
far far smaller than an iPhone battery.

Cost me 140 times less than an iPhone, and works for 30 days between charges.

The point being, if a small battery can run an entire phone for 1 month.
How much drain per day, does LTE by itself put on a device?
Not much.

Because you're not using it!!!!

If you take a phone call on your phone, and talk continuously, never hanging up, does it still last 1 month, or like 6-8 hours?
 
Because you're not using it!!!!

If you take a phone call on your phone, and talk continuously, never hanging up, does it still last 1 month, or like 6-8 hours?

Well, no one was saying LTE would kill the watch because you would be talking into it for 6-8 hours non stop.

The comments were just having LTE (even just there in case was needed ever) would kill the battery so was unthinkable.
 
Thank you for making this point it was one of the features Tim Cook mentioned in the last keynote which was a great thing to hear. I'm looking forward to it when I'm at work so if I leave my phone at my desk i get any important notifications.

He's actually wrong, might not want to thank him.
 
Really good and informative answers!

I completely understand the whole "why can't the Ipad make phone calls etc" that we all heard of when it was released. But the thing that baffles me and maybe I'm just trying to justify a purchase for no reason whatsoever, is that what exactly is this product?

The ipad was not designed to make phone calls, you had your Iphone for that. It was made for an incredible browsing experience. The watch was not made for answering texts, browsing the web or making phone calls, you have your phone for that. The phone also tells the time.

But what is it for? What are you guys buying this device for if it needs to be paired with your phone? Is it just for fitness?

I'm not criticizing anyone buying it, people can do what ever they please with their hard earned money. I just really want to understand this device and yet I can't.

Anyway, first world problems signing off. It will be interesting how this product shows it's usefulness when it gets out in the wild.
Good questions, and ones I also struggled with when the device was first announced right up until recently. The watch's purpose is much harder to grasp than any other device Apple has introduced; a lot of people couldn't even understand the purpose of the iPad, even though it was clearly superior for a multitude of tasks over the iPhone (such as web browsing as you mentioned).

I think it's very helpful to dissect the watch as three tenpole functions Cook used in both presentations.

1. A timepiece. People I think have been very quick to skip right over this core feature. I am a person who does not wear a traditional watch because, like so many, I carry a smartphone and "can just check my phone for that". But a 2013 study showed people dig out their phones 18 times a day (figure once per waking hour) just to tell the time, when a glance at the wrist would have been much more convenient. I see the benefit of having the time on my wrist, but a single-purpose device like the traditional watch just isn't compelling enough for me to bother owning and wearing one. Making the watch useful for more than just one feature could very well see the decline of the wristwatch turn the other way.

2. Health and Fitness companion. This alone can justify the purchase for many people, while others couldn't care less about the health and fitness features of the watch. If a person's in the latter camp then obviously they doesn't help justify why the watch exists as a product for them. But for those who do care, having a fitness band that is stylish enough to wear for any occasion (with the proper accompanying bands) is a pretty big deal. Not to mention, how Apple is using the collected data to the user's advantage I think is much more refined than what anyone else has done. This is definitely one tenpole feature where a person cannot say, "my phone can do that just as well".

3. Communication device. This I think is the one where people are having the hardest time, because our immediate response is, "but I can just take my phone out of my pocket for that". Which isn't untrue! However, the more I think about it the more I've come to believe that the smartphone is quite frankly not a very good notification center. Unless a person's phone is physically in their hand for their 18 waking hours of the day, or their work and personal life never involve awaiting time-sensitive notifications, the Watch has a lot to offer.

That same study I mentioned earlier also determined that the average user checks their phone 150 times per day; in an 18-hour day that's once every 7 minutes. I don't think that's because we all live very important lives (nor do I think your life needs be important to benefit from the watch), but because we've become addicted to checking for notifications. And I think the reason for that is we've all been burned more than once by missing a time-sensitive email, text or call because we either 1.) didn't hear the phone 2.) didn't feel the vibration or 3.) our phone was across the room and neither was possible. So we check, and we check, and we check again. And we check again. Guess what: you're not going to miss a tap on the wrist from the watch, so you can forget about your phone and just go throughout your day until you actually receive a notification.

There's also like a half-dozen of other watch features that don't fall into these categories (Remote, Camera remote, Music while jogging, etc), that aren't killer features on their own but added all up are worth taking into consideration.
 
Last edited:
A combination of what Apple says, what's on the developer forums, and technical know-how.

So despite Tim Cook saying you don't need your phone with you so long as it's on the same network you're going to say there's no Wi-fi. He clearly states in the direct that you don't need the phone with you at all time. As long as you're in your house the watch will pick up everything from the phone. SO then either it has some new bluetooth tech that no one else seems to have OR it must have Wi-fi, that's simple logic. Unless it's just magick.
 
No - it has nothing to do with what wifi network you're connected to. The watch and phone will connect directly to each other over wifi to increase the range over bluetooth. No external network is used.

Based on the Apple document you linked to, the reason for Bluetooth is to scan and establish a connection, then the peer to peer wifi takes over. Although maybe it also just stops using wifi, and uses Bluetooth when within 30ft to save more battery.

Edit: sorry you didn't link to the Apple document, it was beagle

Here's the link: http://help.apple.com/deployment/ios/#/apd8fc751f59
 
Last edited:
Really good and informative answers!

I completely understand the whole "why can't the Ipad make phone calls etc" that we all heard of when it was released. But the thing that baffles me and maybe I'm just trying to justify a purchase for no reason whatsoever, is that what exactly is this product?

The ipad was not designed to make phone calls, you had your Iphone for that. It was made for an incredible browsing experience. The watch was not made for answering texts, browsing the web or making phone calls, you have your phone for that. The phone also tells the time.

But what is it for? What are you guys buying this device for if it needs to be paired with your phone? Is it just for fitness?

I'm not criticizing anyone buying it, people can do what ever they please with their hard earned money. I just really want to understand this device and yet I can't.

Anyway, first world problems signing off. It will be interesting how this product shows it's usefulness when it gets out in the wild.

I would benefit from these

- Glances at notifications - the iPhone can be in your backpack or purse, and you can be aware of when you have just received an important email. The watch is on your wrist and is there with you with at all times. The iPhone can be on the couch, in your bag, or in the passenger seat of a car. The watch will allow you see important notices without reaching for your phone when it is inconvenient or unsafe to do so (READ: car)

- Workout sensors - self explanatory

- Watch faces - not useful, but sometimes I feel like changing the face from analog to digital and other funky things.

- Apple Pay - It's more magical to be able to put your wrist over the NFC terminal than your phone. Jedi mind trick.

In the end, I've always wanted to wear a watch, but never really cared to due to its limited function. i don't care about jewelry, and we all know a watch is a man's jewelry piece. Now that we have something that can be with you at all times (as it attached to your body) and that does more than just telling time, it's enticing.
 
Last edited:
So despite Tim Cook saying you don't need your phone with you so long as it's on the same network you're going to say there's no Wi-fi. He clearly states in the direct that you don't need the phone with you at all time. As long as you're in your house the watch will pick up everything from the phone. SO then either it has some new bluetooth tech that no one else seems to have OR it must have Wi-fi, that's simple logic. Unless it's just magick.
The watch has wifi. It just doesn't connect to a wifi network. It connects peer-to-peer wifi to your iPhone. It most likely works like the new AirPlay works in ios 8 and on the latest Apple TV update. You don't need a network to stream content between the iPhone and Apple TV or they can be on separate networks, or one can be, and the other not. It doesn't matter.
 
So despite Tim Cook saying you don't need your phone with you so long as it's on the same network you're going to say there's no Wi-fi. He clearly states in the direct that you don't need the phone with you at all time. As long as you're in your house the watch will pick up everything from the phone. SO then either it has some new bluetooth tech that no one else seems to have OR it must have Wi-fi, that's simple logic. Unless it's just magick.

Wow, so much wrong:
  1. I never said it didn't have wifi. It states right on Apple's website that is has 802.11BG, which it used along with bluetooth to "seamlessly" connect the watch to an iPhone.
  2. Tim Cook didn't say anything about wifi or networks.
  3. Kevin Lynch said that you didn't have to have your phone with you, using your home as an example. He never said anything about being on the same network.

It's a pretty easy concept - the phone and watch will use wifi to directly connect to each other - no external network is used.

----------

Based on the Apple document you linked to, the reason for Bluetooth is to scan and establish a connection, then the peer to peer wifi takes over. Although maybe it also just stops using wifi, and uses Bluetooth when within 30ft to save more battery.

Edit: sorry you didn't link to the Apple document, it was beagle

Here's the link: http://help.apple.com/deployment/ios/#/apd8fc751f59

That's for AirPlay - bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth to stream video.
 
That's for AirPlay - bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth to stream video.

Right, so you're saying the Bluetooth connectivity is strictly for better battery life over the wifi. The wifi only being for increased range, at the expensive of battery life.
 
Right, so you're saying the Bluetooth connectivity is strictly for better battery life over the wifi. The wifi only being for increased range, at the expensive of battery life.

Essentially yes - although other than for range Apple hasn't said what the conditions are for switching to wifi. They might also use it for transfer speed.

My hunch is that they will try to stay strictly on bluetooth whenever possible.
 
I would not buy one if it required me to get another data plan. My iPhone is still on unlimited data from AT&T so there is no data sharing for me ;)
 
Thank you for making this point it was one of the features Tim Cook mentioned in the last keynote which was a great thing to hear. I'm looking forward to it when I'm at work so if I leave my phone at my desk i get any important notifications.

It wasn't Tim Cook, it was Kevin Lynch. And it's unclear whether he meant the Watch connects to your phone via local WiFi or WiFi direct. I've looked into this extensively, but Apple has released nothing one way or another.

But, two things are clear: 1) You'll still need to be connected to your phone, and 2) the range will be quite large, at least at home/work/gym where there is WiFi (and maybe everywhere).
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    289.4 KB · Views: 112
It wasn't Tim Cook, it was Kevin Lynch. And it's unclear whether he meant the Watch connects to your phone via local WiFi or WiFi direct. I've looked into this extensively, but Apple has released nothing one way or another.

But, two things are clear: 1) You'll still need to be connected to your phone, and 2) the range will be quite large, at least at home/work/gym where there is WiFi (and maybe everywhere).

The watch only has Wi-Fi 802.11b/g ( http://www.apple.com/pr/library/201...e-Watch-Apples-Most-Personal-Device-Ever.html ). It is going to be direct connection or else you are going to see a performance hit on your N network, due to having a B/G device on it.
 
It's worth pointing out that even when ignoring issues with a cellular Apple Watch such as battery life, and the need for an additional subscription plan/SIM card, there's no benefit for Apple to obsolete their iPhone with a watch which does essentially the same things (minus a useable screen, all iPhone apps there ever was, and camera).

They want you to invest MORE heavily into their iOS eco system, not less. By making the watch a companion device they leverage the strengths of iPhone (like using the phone's battery and wifi/cellular hardware for data traffic and phone calls, taking pictures, GPS, additional sensors and so on), while simultaneously making it less likely you'll jump ship later on, as you'd have to dump not just your phone and its apps, but also your watch as well if you were to ever switch to Android. (Windows phone goes unmentioned... Poor Microsoft! ;))
 
Essentially yes - although other than for range Apple hasn't said what the conditions are for switching to wifi. They might also use it for transfer speed.



My hunch is that they will try to stay strictly on bluetooth whenever possible.


When switched to wifi, what do you think the range would be? Close to 300ft. as others are saying or less?
 
Hey,

I'm wondering what you guys think of the possibility of a future :apple:watch without the need to pair it to an existing Iphone?

Do you reckon it might happen? Why/why not?

Cannot really justify the purchase this generation because I don't like the idea of it being just an extension of my phone.

Theres is no doubt in my mind that these things will sell like crazy, but if the watch would work without an Iphone, I would buy it straight away!

Cheers
It would be a massive success as a standalone watch.

Conversely the hit Apple might take on iPhones isn't a risk they're likely to take.

But Apple has been rather inconsistent, who knows what might happen.
 
He's actually wrong, might not want to thank him.

Aren't you pleasant.

Wow, so much wrong:
  1. I never said it didn't have wifi. It states right on Apple's website that is has 802.11BG, which it used along with bluetooth to "seamlessly" connect the watch to an iPhone.
  2. Tim Cook didn't say anything about wifi or networks.
  3. Kevin Lynch said that you didn't have to have your phone with you, using your home as an example. He never said anything about being on the same network.

1.) Wrong. It says right on Apple Watch "Features" 802.11 b/g/N
Apple - Apple Watch - scroll to bottom

2.) Bluetooth is used for the device "handshake" Wi-Fi is the primary data transfer protocol. Point to any source saying otherwise.

3.) Kevin Lynch said you can be anywhere in your house without your phone and still use Apple Watch. Please explain how that would possible using only Wi-Fi Direct from the tiny antennas of the iPhone.

I think you are falsely assuming that Wi-Fi direct is the only protocol used by the Apple Watch. We have no evidence that suggests that that would be true, in fact, it's contrary to what has been already reported. It is completely feasible that Apple Watch will connect to the local network. This is the primary new function of the 2015 Android Wear update. It's hard to believe that Apple would be behind Android on this matter.

Let's try to not spread spurious assumptions as fact.
 
Aren't you pleasant.







1.) Wrong. It says right on Apple Watch "Features" 802.11 b/g/N

Apple - Apple Watch - scroll to bottom



2.) Bluetooth is used for the device "handshake" Wi-Fi is the primary data transfer protocol. Point to any source saying otherwise.



3.) Kevin Lynch said you can be anywhere in your house without your phone and still use Apple Watch. Please explain how that would possible using only Wi-Fi Direct from the tiny antennas of the iPhone.



I think you are falsely assuming that Wi-Fi direct is the only protocol used by the Apple Watch. We have no evidence that suggests that that would be true, in fact, it's contrary to what has been already reported. It is completely feasible that Apple Watch will connect to the local network. This is the primary new function of the 2015 Android Wear update. It's hard to believe that Apple would be behind Android on this matter.



Let's try to not spread spurious assumptions as fact.



If what you say is true.
How do you type the password for wifi on your Watch
 
I doubt it would be the second gen, but if wearables do take off then at some point I see them edging phones out of the picture. It just needs an easy way to enter contacts without a phone, and use a bluetooth headset so you aren't on speaker phone all the time and it might work.
 
Apple says the apple watch will last up to 18 hours and we hear nothing but moans and groans about battery life. Imagine a LTE Apple watch with 2 hour battery life.

Assuming future Apple Watch can squeeze in GPS, cellular, and antennas, I suspect Apple will tackle the battery issue as follows.

1st generation Apple Watch relies on Bluetooth Low Energy to do much of the footwork, triggering 2.4GHz Wi-Fi only when transferring data. Once data is transferred, it quickly puts Wi-Fi back to sleep (also known as race to sleep).

I suspect cellular equipped Apple Watch will do the same, triggering cellular only for transferring data. And either only periodically polling for notifications over the cloud OR only when you open the app to check manually.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.