2nd gen no need for a phone?

[J4B3]

If what you say is true.
How do you type the password for wifi on your Watch

Not sure if serious, but you wouldn't need to with iCloud keychain, or you would just type it in once on the phone. Not saying the Apple Watch will connect independently of the phone.

 

[technosix]

How so?

Many people currently using iPhones don't truly need a fully functional smartphone. To eliminate the expense to the consumer of being forced to buy both the watch and a phone to make it work is an expense they'd gladly forego.

 

[Cory Bauer]

Many people currently using iPhones don't truly need a fully functional smartphone. To eliminate the expense to the consumer of being forced to buy both the watch and a phone to make it work is an expense they'd gladly forego.

I...don't think so. If that were the case, smartphones would have never caught on in the first place. There's only so much the Watch can do; you'll never be able to type on it, you can't make private calls without a bluetooth headset, your only form of response to messages is verbal dictation, you can't surf the web, the list goes on and on. And people keep wanting bigger and bigger phones - we're using 4.7" and 5.5" screens now; very, very few people would give that up for a 1" screen.

The watch has less of a chance to replace the smartphone than the smartphone has a chance of replacing the computer.

 

[technosix]

I...don't think so. If that were the case, smartphones would have never caught on in the first place. There's only so much the Watch can do; you'll never be able to type on it, you can't make private calls without a bluetooth headset, your only form of response to messages is verbal dictation, you can't surf the web, the list goes on and on. And people keep wanting bigger and bigger phones - we're using 4.7" and 5.5" screens now; very, very few people would give that up for a 1" screen.

The watch has less of a chance to replace the smartphone than the smartphone has a chance of replacing the computer.

At no time did I suggest the watch will replace the phone.

Nor did I say smartphones have no future.

It's a mighty big group of people using smartphones. As I did say, some of those people don't need them.

Largely influenced by keeping up with their friends, adult and no so adult children and their peers they carry an iPhone which in many cases they are confused by, afraid to make mistakes with, and fill up Apple's how to use an iPhone basics in store classes, weekly.

Further influenced by the carriers near total abandonment of feature Phones the customers are lead to believe they need a smartphone. It's industry greed.

 

[Piggie]

you'll never be able to type on it,

On this one point I don't agree.

With the right software/interface, you could type out a short message on the screen of the watch at exactly the same speed you can write in block capitols (which most people do these days) on a piece of paper using a pen of pencil.

Just like a pencil/pen on a paper, you draw the shape of each letter one at a time.

You'd not want to write a long document, but short messages would be totally fine.

In a similar way as you used to use the Palm PDA to enter writing in a similar sizes area.

As show here, albeit using your finger and not a stylus:
https://youtu.be/iL0YLuClysY

As you can see it's perfectly fast enough for a short to medium message.

 

[Cory Bauer]

At no time did I suggest the watch will replace the phone.

Nor did I say smartphones have no future.

It's a mighty big group of people using smartphones. As I did say, some of those people don't need them.

Largely influenced by keeping up with their friends, adult and no so adult children and their peers they carry an iPhone which in many cases they are confused by, afraid to make mistakes with, and fill up Apple's how to use an iPhone basics in store classes, weekly.

Further influenced by the carriers near total abandonment of feature Phones the customers are lead to believe they need a smartphone. It's industry greed.

No, I understood what you meant: that "many" people could make do with the watch as a phone - enough people to result in the watch being a "massive success" - more than it will be otherwise. You're suggesting the Apple Watch could be a sort of dumbphone option for people who don't need all the bells and whistles of a smartphone. Two problems with that is that 1.) the watch as a small wristbound device is incapable of providing a good user experience for what would be the basic functionality of even a dumbphone, and 2.) the number of people who could make do with a 1" screen device as a phone replacement is not a very large market - in fact it's a very, very small one.

On this one point I don't agree.

With the right software/interface, you could type out a short message on the screen of the watch at exactly the same speed you can write in block capitols (which most people do these days) on a piece of paper using a pen of pencil.

Just like a pencil/pen on a paper, you draw the shape of each letter one at a time.

You'd not want to write a long document, but short messages would be totally fine.

In a similar way as you used to use the Palm PDA to enter writing in a similar sizes area.

As show here, albeit using your finger and not a stylus:
https://youtu.be/iL0YLuClysY

As you can see it's perfectly fast enough for a short to medium message.

I don't think Apple would implement an input method that would be so maddening for the user; if you drew letters with your finger one at a time on the tiny screen - not only would it take forever - but you wouldn't be able to see what you were writing and also write simultaneously (that's the key difference between the watch and the palm pilot example you shared).

No teenager's going to want to text their friends at 10 words per minute when their smartphone-touting buddies can hammer out a paragraph of text in 20 seconds.

 

[Runt888]

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

You're right, they must have recently changed it on the site.

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 guess we'll find out in a few weeks.

 

[Camusrieux]

I can't imagine it happening in generation 2 (or probably even 3 or 4), but it seems to me that, as long as technical barriers such as battery life don't prove to be impassable, it's all but inevitable that the Apple Watch and competing smartwatches will take over the telephone product space.

Sure, there are functions (data entry via typing, internet surfing, and various kinds of media consumption) that don't make sense on any screen that's small enough to be used as a passable-looking watch, but my sense is that (1) plenty of people, in plenty of circumstances, will be happy to trade the use of those particular big-screen-only functions for the convenience of not having to carry an expensive and bulky piece of electronics in their pockets or bags and (2) the also-large number of people who sufficiently value typing/surfing/video watching/etc. on-the-go will still have plenty of tablet-ish products of various sizes available to serve those needs. Millions of people will still own a smartwatch and (what looks to a resident of 2015 just like a) smartphone; it'll simply be the latter that's tethered to, or at least less crucial than, the former.

To the notion that Apple would never do this because it would cannibalize iPhone sales: pffft. Have you noticed how the iPhone 6+ has taken a chunk out of the iPad Mini's business, if not indeed its reason to exist? To say nothing of the manner in which the iPhone, from its very introduction, basically destroyed the iPod? As various pundits have noted, Apple more than any other technology company has demonstrated a clear willingness to undermine old product categories with new ones. And thank goodness—because the alternative is allowing some other company to do the disrupting, leaving Apple in the dust along with every other tech firm that can currently be found clinging to its legacy products in the cemetery.

 

[Cory Bauer]

If not being able to take private calls, surf the web or do any kind of data entry weren't reasons enough, Apple has explicitly stated the watch only works for small, quick interactions. Ergonomically, that's all that makes sense. Per the Wired article today:

Figuring out how to send a text was illuminating. Initially the process was a lot like texting on an iPhone: addressee here, message here, confirm message. Tap to send. “It was all very understandable, but using it took way too long,” Lynch says. Also, it hurt. Seriously: Try holding up your arm as if you’re looking at your watch. Now count to 30. It was the opposite of a good user experience. “We didn’t want people walking around and doing that,” Dye says.

As the testing went on, it became evident that the key to making the Watch work was speed. An interaction could last only five seconds, 10 at most. They simplified some features and took others out entirely because they just couldn’t be done quickly enough. Lynch and team had to reengineer the Watch’s software twice before it was sufficiently fast.

The only people for whom the Watch could work as a phone replacement are those who almost never use their phones at all.

 

[Camusrieux]

If not being able to take private calls, surf the web or do any kind of data entry weren't reasons enough, Apple has explicitly stated the watch only works for small, quick interactions.

But with (1) any Bluetooth-enabled product that contains both a speaker and a microphone or just (2) a quiet, private room, a smartwatch absolutely can take private calls. And dictation very much is "any kind of data entry," even though a lot of people are currently, for understandable reasons, not enamored with it.

Then, the whole reason for the quick-interaction rule is battery and screen-size limitations. If the battery problem can be sufficiently solved and screen size isn't an issue for a particular function (calling Mom, dictating a text message, etc.), the quick-interaction rule doesn't apply. AWatch 1.0 users making phone calls via the "Dick Tracy method" won't be limited to ten-second calls, will they?

If—and this is a significant "if," as the large number of haters on this forum suggests—smartwatch users in the AWatch era find that their watches perform a sufficient proportion of the functions that their smartphones currently provide, it's hard to see how the day won't eventually come when consumers start to wonder (or some savvy tech company prods them to wonder) why they need to lug a mandatory 5-inch screen around with them everywhere. Especially when/if most of the places they go already have screens (TVs, desktops, laptops, tablets) that sync smoothly with the communications device on the consumers' wrists and that permit all of the typing, surfing, and media consumption functions that smartphones currently do.

The wrist has beaten the pocket once. I guess I like its chances to win out again.

 

[Exile714]

Since the Watch screen is too small for typing, here's my bet for Gen 2:

Announcing Apple Watch 2 Plus. All the features of Apple Watch, plus typing and the ability to access the Internet via 3G or WiFi. With a new, super large 3.5 inch screen, the Watch 2 Plus is a no-compromise option for those who don't want or can't afford a Watch and an iPhone. Also, for the budget conscious, the Apple Watch 2 Plus only comes with one, black Velcro strap for just $30.

Sound good? Sound great? Well just go on eBay, buy an old iPhone 4S and a Velcro strap, and Voila! Apple Watch 2 Plus. It's pretty much everything you guys are asking for!

 

[Cory Bauer]

But with (1) any Bluetooth-enabled product that contains both a speaker and a microphone or just (2) a quiet, private room, a smartwatch absolutely can take private calls. And dictation very much is "any kind of data entry," even though a lot of people are currently, for understandable reasons, not enamored with it.

Speakerphone calls and voice dictation are great to have, but they can't stand as your only form of data entry. There's just too many scenarios, namely any time you're not alone, where silent input is preferred, required or both. I've yet to see a person use Siri or dictation in public apart from showing off the features to friends, although I use both regularly in private.

Then, the whole reason for the quick-interaction rule is battery and screen-size limitations. If the battery problem can be sufficiently solved and screen size isn't an issue for a particular function (calling Mom, dictating a text message, etc.), the quick-interaction rule doesn't apply. AWatch 1.0 users making phone calls via the "Dick Tracy method" won't be limited to ten-second calls, will they?

Battery and screen-size limitations is a reason, but not the reason. Did you see the quote I pulled from Dye? Holding your arm up in the "I'm viewing my watch" position for 30 seconds literally hurts.

If—and this is a significant "if," as the large number of haters on this forum suggests—smartwatch users in the AWatch era find that their watches perform a sufficient proportion of the functions that their smartphones currently provide, it's hard to see how the day won't eventually come when consumers start to wonder (or some savvy tech company prods them to wonder) why they need to lug a mandatory 5-inch screen around with them everywhere. Especially when/if most of the places they go already have screens (TVs, desktops, laptops, tablets) that sync smoothly with the communications device on the consumers' wrists and that permit all of the typing, surfing, and media consumption functions that smartphones currently do.

The wrist has beaten the pocket once. I guess I like its chances to win out again.

We started with 3.5" smartphone screens; customers demanded larger. Now we're at 5.5" - I don't think the genie is going back in the bottle on this one. If anything, the Watch makes way for phones to be made even larger still, on account of it being possible to just have them slung in a back most of the day.

A side-effect of the smartwatch I could see happing however is that customers stop replacing their phones as frequently as they do now. Just as we're hanging onto computers for longer and longer now that they largely sit idle except for that 10% of the time our iPhone or iPads aren't the best tool for the job.

 

[Camusrieux]

Speakerphone calls and voice dictation are great to have, but they can't stand as your only form of data entry.

Sure they can—as long as you find yourself in situations where those functions are insufficient rarely enough that you don't feel the need to buy yourself a screen peripheral for the Watch. (“New from Apple for Christmas 2020: the iPad Nano, a pocketable tablet computer with a 4.7-inch screen that appears, to time travelers arriving from 2015, suspiciously similar to an iPhone 6.”)

Again, I’m only hypothesizing that there will be a meaningful number of people who are willing to forego the functions that (1) an iPhone/iPad can perform but (2) an Apple Watch can’t, in order to have the advantage of avoiding buying an expensive and bulky device and/or lugging it everywhere they go in a pocket or bag. Those of us (including me) for whom the balance tips the other way can choose from a wide range of iPads to accompany our Watches.

There's just too many scenarios, namely any time you're not alone, where silent input is preferred, required or both.

But the Apple Watch can manage silent input. The touchscreen and digital crown make effectively zero sound; we’ll be communicating silently with applications and people all the time with this thing. What the Watch (as currently conceived) can’t offer is input that is both silent and complex, such that a keyboard is far more suitable than the simple-response buttons that the Watch apps we’ve seen demonstrated use. Is that limitation a deal-breaker, given that those of us who want that stuff can easily buy a peripheral that provides those functions? I’m guessing it’s not.

Battery and screen-size limitations is a reason, but not the reason. Did you see the quote I pulled from Dye? Holding your arm up in the "I'm viewing my watch" position for 30 seconds literally hurts.

Okay… but what functions that I’ve mentioned (dictation? Bluetooth calls?) require anyone to hold up their arm? (I suppose “Dick Tracy” calls arguably do… but I dunno, when I use my—considerably heavier—iPhone as a speakerphone, I don’t feel like my arm is going to fall off.)

I agree that the ten-second rule is something close to ironclad when the user is required to spend all that time looking at a tiny watch screen. But I don’t think the core potential-iPhone-killer Watch functions require that at all. It seems to me that, with (1) improved dictation (and Siri) software, (2) a cellular connection and GPS, (3a) a Bluetooth device or (3b) a quiet room, and (4) all of the other communication functions that can be usefully packed onto the Watch, a wrist-worn device is capable of taking a big bite out of a smartphone’s reason for existence. And all of the raison d'être that’s left could be fairly easily fit onto an iPad, including one with a 5-inch screen.

 

[Cory Bauer]

Sure they can—as long as you find yourself in situations where those functions are insufficient rarely enough that you don't feel the need to buy yourself a screen peripheral for the Watch. (“New from Apple for Christmas 2020: the iPad Nano, a pocketable tablet computer with a 4.7-inch screen that appears, to time travelers arriving from 2015, suspiciously similar to an iPhone 6.”)

Again, I’m only hypothesizing that there will be a meaningful number of people who are willing to forego the functions that (1) an iPhone/iPad can perform but (2) an Apple Watch can’t, in order to have the advantage of avoiding buying an expensive and bulky device and/or lugging it everywhere they go in a pocket or bag. Those of us (including me) for whom the balance tips the other way can choose from a wide range of iPads to accompany our Watches.

When you can get an iPhone on contract for free, what expense are you truly saving by replacing it with a watch that's incapable of basic phone tasks like typing? As you're suggesting, you'd certainly need to buy some another device to flesh out the features anyhow.

But the Apple Watch can manage silent input. The touchscreen and digital crown make effectively zero sound; we’ll be communicating silently with applications and people all the time with this thing. What the Watch (as currently conceived) can’t offer is input that is both silent and complex, such that a keyboard is far more suitable than the simple-response buttons that the Watch apps we’ve seen demonstrated use. Is that limitation a deal-breaker, given that those of us who want that stuff can easily buy a peripheral that provides those functions? I’m guessing it’s not.

Of course the digital crown and touchscreen are silent; but data entry requires speaking out loud at your watch - not something anyone's (hopefully) going to do in public. And yes, I do think this would be a deal-breaker for virtually everyone in terms of making it their only phone.

Okay… but what functions that I’ve mentioned (dictation? Bluetooth calls?) require anyone to hold up their arm? (I suppose “Dick Tracy” calls arguably do… but I dunno, when I use my—considerably heavier—iPhone as a speakerphone, I don’t feel like my arm is going to fall off.)

I agree that the ten-second rule is something close to ironclad when the user is required to spend all that time looking at a tiny watch screen. But I don’t think the core potential-iPhone-killer Watch functions require that at all. It seems to me that, with (1) improved dictation (and Siri) software, (2) a cellular connection and GPS, (3a) a Bluetooth device or (3b) a quiet room, and (4) all of the other communication functions that can be usefully packed onto the Watch, a wrist-worn device is capable of taking a big bite out of a smartphone’s reason for existence. And all of the raison d'être that’s left could be fairly easily fit onto an iPad, including one with a 5-inch screen.

I trust that the creators of the Apple Watch know what they're talking about in this regard, since they've spent a little more time developing a smartwatch than you or I have If for nothing else, you're going to need to hold your arm up to see and touch the watch, right? And it's only a 1" or whatever screen so you're going to need to hold it up much higher and closer to your face than you do a 5.5" screen.

The ONLY way I could see Apple offering the Watch as a Phone replacement, years in the future when a tiny battery can support all day LTE activity, is by giving buyers the option to either pair it with an iPhone or an iPad. Because having an iPad Mini in your bag could also serve to complete the Watch (apart from private calling). So maybe someday the Apple Watch tech specs will read, "Requires an iPhone or iPad". But I don't see how or why they would ever, ever sell it as a device that doesn't require anything else at all.

 

[Camusrieux]

When you can get an iPhone on contract for free, what expense are you truly saving by replacing it with a watch that's incapable of basic phone tasks like typing? As you're suggesting, you'd certainly need to buy some another device to flesh out the features anyhow.

That’s only if those features are worth the bother and expense for you. (And “on contract” is an expense, even if consumers sometimes fail to recognize that.)

Of course the digital crown and touchscreen are silent; but data entry requires speaking out loud at your watch….

I think we’re having terminological problems here. Isn’t using the digital crown to choose an option from a list, or tapping a button on the touchscreen that’s marked “Yes” or “No” or something else (Kevin Lynch, in the September presentation, was asked to pick between “Love Shack,” “Wild Thing,” and “Not sure”) to respond to a text message or calendar invitation—isn’t that entering data into the Watch? I don’t see how any of those could possibly fail to be forms of data entry (and rather useful ones, too), so I don’t understand how you can assert something like “data entry requires speaking out loud at your watch.” No, it really doesn’t.

Again, the complexity of data entry that the Watch permits is limited—mainly by the small screen, but also to some extent by the primitive state of the available software for both dictation and Siri. (If Siri were 75% as smart as Samantha, the Scarlett Johansson-voiced OS in “Her,” the data-entry capability of even an extremely-small-screen device would be enormous. But that’s obviously more than a little fantastical at present.) Still, recognizing those limitations is a far cry from claiming, as you seem to be, that silent data entry is impossible on the AWatch.

If for nothing else, you're going to need to hold your arm up to see and touch the watch, right?

Sure—but once again, I’m trying to point out to you that the potential-iPhone-killer functions I’m talking about wouldn’t necessarily require looking at or tapping the screen very much, or sometimes even at all. “Hey, Siri” doesn’t require any looking or touching whatsoever. Tapping a simple response to a text (e.g., Lynch texting Jony Ive that Lynch is singing “Wild Thing” at the karaoke event this afternoon) only barely does. If I can do 90+% of the stuff I want an iPhone for without either an iPhone or arm pain, how important is it going to be to me to buy an iPhone?

The ONLY way I could see Apple offering the Watch as a Phone replacement, years in the future when a tiny battery can support all day LTE activity, is by giving buyers the option to either pair it with an iPhone or an iPad.

Sure; Continuity-like features would be an absolute must. The Watch would need to be pairable with just about any Apple hardware that has (or drives) a screen: iPhone, iPad, laptop, desktop, Apple TV. But you’re arguing that the choice will be “with an iPhone or an iPad, but not neither.” I don’t see why Apple would (or, maybe more to the point, how Apple can) maintain that as a non-negotiable mandate.

On the battery issue, however, yes, you’re clearly right. If, even n generations down the line, smartwatches can’t maintain a cellular connection for a good 24 or so hours on one charge, this exchange is totally academic. And even if I’m right, the battery technology necessary to prove it is very likely years away.

But I don't see how or why they would ever, ever sell it as a device that doesn't require anything else at all.

Because if they don’t, someone else will. And then there goes Apple.

 

[Cory Bauer]

That’s only if those features are worth the bother and expense for you. (And “on contract” is an expense, even if consumers sometimes fail to recognize that.)



I think we’re having terminological problems here. Isn’t using the digital crown to choose an option from a list, or tapping a button on the touchscreen that’s marked “Yes” or “No” or something else (Kevin Lynch, in the September presentation, was asked to pick between “Love Shack,” “Wild Thing,” and “Not sure”) to respond to a text message or calendar invitation—isn’t that entering data into the Watch? I don’t see how any of those could possibly fail to be forms of data entry (and rather useful ones, too), so I don’t understand how you can assert something like “data entry requires speaking out loud at your watch.” No, it really doesn’t.

Again, the complexity of data entry that the Watch permits is limited—mainly by the small screen, but also to some extent by the primitive state of the available software for both dictation and Siri. (If Siri were 75% as smart as Samantha, the Scarlett Johansson-voiced OS in “Her,” the data-entry capability of even an extremely-small-screen device would be enormous. But that’s obviously more than a little fantastical at present.) Still, recognizing those limitations is a far cry from claiming, as you seem to be, that silent data entry is impossible on the AWatch.



Sure—but once again, I’m trying to point out to you that the potential-iPhone-killer functions I’m talking about wouldn’t necessarily require looking at or tapping the screen very much, or sometimes even at all. “Hey, Siri” doesn’t require any looking or touching whatsoever. Tapping a simple response to a text (e.g., Lynch texting Jony Ive that Lynch is singing “Wild Thing” at the karaoke event this afternoon) only barely does. If I can do 90+% of the stuff I want an iPhone for without either an iPhone or arm pain, how important is it going to be to me to buy an iPhone?



Sure; Continuity-like features would be an absolute must. The Watch would need to be pairable with just about any Apple hardware that has (or drives) a screen: iPhone, iPad, laptop, desktop, Apple TV. But you’re arguing that the choice will be “with an iPhone or an iPad, but not neither.” I don’t see why Apple would (or, maybe more to the point, how Apple can) maintain that as a non-negotiable mandate.

On the battery issue, however, yes, you’re clearly right. If, even n generations down the line, smartwatches can’t maintain a cellular connection for a good 24 or so hours on one charge, this exchange is totally academic. And even if I’m right, the battery technology necessary to prove it is very likely years away.



Because if they don’t, someone else will. And then there goes Apple.

Of course selecting from a pre-generated list of responses is a form of data entry, but that's going to cover nowhere near "90+%" of what's required to make a device a serious phone replacement. And that's my point; you cannot seriously replace the smartphone with a smartwatch. And if you really want to put it to the test, try spending a day with your iPhone using only emoticons and iOS 8's predictive text suggestions and see how far that gets you. Feel free to rely on Siri and dictation in situations when it isn't socially awkward

 

[Kovich]

I think this is an interesting question by the OP. The great thing about Apple products is that you can ask these "Where is this product going?" Knowing that the maker is also saying the same. That it is not independent of the iPhone will be used by some to say that Apple are stupid and by others to say that you should wait to buy gen 2. There is some merit in the latter position albeit it is not one I will take. I doubt the watch will ever by fully independent of the iPhone because I don't think that creates the right user experience but I do think it needs to be more independent than it currently is.
But I also expect Apple knows that as well and will add indepennce as and when the technology allows them to do so without denigrating the user experience.

 

[Cory Bauer]

If people had the choice what would be more significant: 1-week battery life or 1-day battery with built-in LTE?

 

[The Doctor11]

The next one will for sure have Wi-Fi. That means you don't have to be within 30 feet of your iPhone...you can be anywhere on the same network. That will be nice.

It has Wi-Fi. And I believe you don't have to be within 30 feet just the same network but I could be wrong on that one.

 

[Multiverse223]

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.

Remember that part where people like to text, and watch video? The smartwatch inherently cannot ever replace a smartphone. It's as simple as that.