Analyst Suggests Third-Generation Apple Watch Will Include Cellular Connectivity

[TechZeke]

This seems like a pointless feature when it requires a device that has LTE built into itself already, an iPhone.

Unless Apple is going to use this as a way to make the Apple Watch independent, which would be a great idea. Only problem: Battery Life.

Idk how to respond to this. My battery is between 60-75% at the end of a 14 hour day. There's usually an hour at the gym in there. Day that I am able to run outside are closer to 50. I wouldn't call that awful. But hey,
To each their own.

I don't know, a personal friend told me that his Apple Watch battery is 'enough', but he said if he had longer work days/went on a night on the town/or had to use it any longer/harder, there's no way the Watch would make it.

 

[kaneda]

For what purpose? I see no point in adding it.

If you have improve Siri, wireless headphone, and your watch. Your smartphone will be secondary.

 

[MacGekko]

I suppose it is possible... but there isn't much room in there to add that stuff, especially if it shrinks the battery any more. Even if it took up zero more space, we'd be looking at ~ 1hr talk-time max. Maybe that's good enough for the application if it's just meant for emergencies or quickly getting a bit of data exchanged. I'm skeptical though at this point.

But, as I said earlier, this is IMO where it has to go to become more widely useful. I currently see no use for one, but if it had this capability, I might reconsider. It would be nice to have something like this for emergencies when it's inconvenient to have a phone along.

I'm not referring to your post but I don't understand many of the negative comments in this thread. Nobody cares if you won't use it just as nobody cares that I don't want to own an Iphone because I don't want to be glued to a screen when I am away from the laptop. For my purposes this would be the ultimate device to stay connected without it taking over your time. You can check stock quotes, sports scores, news headlines, send articles to your Macbook Pro to read at some future point. I can keep in the loop but still effectively stay away from the internet until I am ready to fire up the laptop.

With Apple Pay you can use this to pay for things without having to own an Iphone.

Intel just released news today about how how chips are becoming faster and smaller. Siri is improving every year. Did some of the people here who are proclaiming this impossible forget the patent Apple received for having many of these things embedded in the watchband? We have no idea what they are testing right now in their labs.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3185...intel-digs-deep-to-keep-moores-law-alive.html

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/24/modular-band-links-apple-watch/

I would love to have real time driving directions on my wrist without the need for a GPS car device or smartphone. Or have an improved Siri be able to understand and send complex texts and quickly read out texts that I receive. I would like technology to be so unbelievable it almost disappears and eventually for the people who never want to look at a screen, it will be possible.

Heck an Apple Music subscription would even make sense if I can have every song available on my wrist at any time. And people have no idea what the next generation might desire or expect. This device might not kill off the smartphone, it does not have to but history tells us that it is likely that something will.

 

[rudychidiac]

What on earth do you need internet connectivity for whilst swimming? And what are you going to look at on the watch with it? Also when has it not been practical to have your phone at the gym or running - thats the main two places i'd take it with me!
[doublepost=1490699722][/doublepost]





So what you're saying is - we've gone from everyone moaning that iPhone screens are too small (and phones in general) they've got bigger and bigger and bigger and now actually we'd just be fine with a phone the size of a watch so we don't need to take this giant phone with us anymore

In the future, the watch will be your phone, and the bigger screen you carry will reflect the information from the watch

 

[techwhiz]

For what purpose? I see no point in adding it.

Full seperation from iPhone.
My LG Urbane 2 can be separate from my phone.
Has it's own phone number and plan.
Install apps without a phone. Can be synced as long as both have connectivity.
When on a bike ride I can leave my phone at home.

 

[Tech198]

and Apple said at one stage this was ridiculous (....or did I say it ... oh well.. i can't remember).

I bet users would like this allot over needing to have a iPhone close by for cellular.... Now, bring on the TV

INstalling apps without a phone is god, but in that case the watch had better have bigger storage, or use iCloud now it will have internet access, which is probably what Apple will be heading to

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

I understand what your Apple utopia looks like, but I don't think Apple is going to design an LTE-capable Apple Watch to be an iPhone replacement. I'm sorry to burst your bubble. There are just too many things standing in the way of that becoming a possibility anytime soon.

For starters, texting on a 38mm or 42mm screen sucks. Dictation, you say? Well, that works up to a point but who wants to be dictating most or all of their text messages -- particularly all the time when they're out in public? I certainly don't.

Then there are phone calls. If the Apple Watch was an iPhone replacement, that would mean you'd have to wear bluetooth headphones/earbuds to take calls; or, I guess you could choose to be one of "those" people that walks around in public talking on a speakerphone. Personally, I'd rather just have a normal phone handset.

I hear you that it wouldn't be for everyone. Some people, for example, care more about Facebook and Candy Crush than useful information, occasional music/video and communication. Others, like you, may only need a smaller device with a slightly larger screen. Still others might need a tablet for certain appropriate applications. This system might not be the best for them.

However, for most adults, which I can't imagine aren't the majority of consumers, the split between lifestyle tech and productivity tech is valid and essential. For example, I put messaging in the lifestyle bubble and email in the productivity bubble where they were originally intended. Messaging is meant for quick bursts, which could and probably should be done with dictation, so it's perfect for a wearable. You might not be able to spend all day on Twitter with this system, but most of us who work simply don't do that.

Again, these ideas are from a practical/theoretical design perspective. Practical and profitable aren't always synergistic. We hear more about AR, which has the potential to sell a lot of useless features because of its wow factor, but nothing much about the watch. It's a shame.

 

[dannys1]

In the future, the watch will be your phone, and the bigger screen you carry will reflect the information from the watch

No, no it won't. That would be totally counter productive to the amount of power the bigger screen could carry by then. Sure, one day, the Watch will be as powerful as an iPhone 7 is now - but by then the iPhone 7 will be as powerful as my MacBook Pro!
[doublepost=1490794360][/doublepost]

Full seperation from iPhone.
My LG Urbane 2 can be separate from my phone.
Has it's own phone number and plan.
Install apps without a phone. Can be synced as long as both have connectivity.
When on a bike ride I can leave my phone at home.

Separate phone number too? Sounds a hideous setup to be honest.
[doublepost=1490794991][/doublepost]

I think you are aware that cellular activity on phones is used 95% of the time for things other than actual phone calls.

Yes and that 95% doesn't apply to my  Watch.

 

[Mac 128]

Full seperation from iPhone.
My LG Urbane 2 can be separate from my phone.
Has it's own phone number and plan.
Install apps without a phone. Can be synced as long as both have connectivity.
When on a bike ride I can leave my phone at home.

Separate phone number too? Sounds a hideous setup to be honest.

Good thing you don't have an LTE iPad. It's also has its own number and plan.
[doublepost=1490798383][/doublepost]

In the future, the watch will be your phone, and the bigger screen you carry will reflect the information from the watch

Yes, that's exactly right. The screen will fold or roll up into a pocket, and only be pulled out if absolutely necessary. Siri will handle everything else directly on the watch. Heck, there might not even be a screen, people might opt for HUD in their glasses. The reality is a mobile phone does not need to be as powerful as a laptop, which is another reason Apple will likely remove the Lightning port, and not switch to USB-C, removing all physical, high bandwidth ports. It's just not necessary. No matter how big integrated phone screens get, they won't replace the functionality of a full sized keyboard on a PC. In fact having a 13" screen folded up in a pocket that can be unfolded and draw on the watch as CPU would be far more practical for that than carrying a 6" phone.
[doublepost=1490798844][/doublepost]

I think you are aware that cellular activity on phones is used 95% of the time for things other than actual phone calls.

Yes. And that 95% applies to the watch as well. The watch is primarily a data device, relaying notifications, providing for quick responses, recalling contacts, providing health data and monitoring, providing information of all sorts. Indeed, Siri allows it to respond with almost any information on the watch a person could want. It already provides maps and directions, and of course listening to music. You can even view photos on the watch. Watching you tube videos is not likely far off, as well as FaceTime. I would also argue that these are the things that most iPhone users rely on their phones for. People who play games or watch movies are always going to want to carry an iPhone, but for the rest of us, it won't be necessary -- especially when Apple sells me a flexible display that folds or rolls up in my pocket as a companion to my watch for those times when I must have a larger display. It will be far more efficient that the brick I'm currently carrying around, which ruins all of my jeans by etching its outline into the fabric.

 

[Tinmania]

well i would say this is a complete fabrication as cellular modems use huge amounts of power considering they have to transmit to a cell tower that could be a mile away. just no way to manage that sort of power budget in such a device still and have any sort of useable runtime otherwise. turn on the gps and now you are completely out of power.

"Complete fabrication?" That is an unbelievably obtuse comment, considering there are already watches with LTE that do in fact last the whole day. My LG Sport watch, with LTE, will last the whole day and night since I use it for sleep tracking as well. Charge in the morning while getting ready for work. And you know what? If I want even better battery life I can turn off LTE. Choices. Not a bad thing.



Mike

 

[manu chao]

Yes and that 95% doesn't apply to my  Watch.

Are you over or under? Ie, is more than 5% of your time spend with the watch used for making phone calls?

 

[ackmondual]

Sounds like 3rd time's the charm!

 

[groovyd]

"Complete fabrication?" That is an unbelievably obtuse comment, considering there are already watches with LTE that do in fact last the whole day. My LG Sport watch, with LTE, will last the whole day and night since I use it for sleep tracking as well. Charge in the morning while getting ready for work. And you know what? If I want even better battery life I can turn off LTE. Choices. Not a bad thing.
Mike

it might connect once for a second to sync a few things, sure but no way it is accessing LTE all day and night on a watch battery. Just saying because I actually designed hardware with these modems in them for gps trackers and the power budget is way too high for such a small battery as what fits in a smart watch. Does it work a few times for a few seconds? sure but not as a functional component of a watch for all day life.

 

[dannys1]

Good thing you don't have an LTE iPad. It's also has its own number and plan.

That's one of the reasons I didn't bother with one after the first iPad. I realised I very very rarely used the cellular data - the phone number didn't matter as you couldn't take calls on it, but even when buying one off data I didn't think it was worth the extra cost.

I might have kept it had you been able to buy 2gb of data in the UK and had it last indefinitely, but all the data plans expire so I found tethering from my unlimited data phone was a much better idea - and if I'm willing to do that with the iPad i'd certainly do it with the watch where its seamless.

 

[Mac 128]

it might connect once for a second to sync a few things, sure but no way it is accessing LTE all day and night on a watch battery. Just saying because I actually designed hardware with these modems in them for gps trackers and the power budget is way too high for such a small battery as what fits in a smart watch. Does it work a few times for a few seconds? sure but not as a functional component of a watch for all day life.

But the Apple Watch doesn't really have to yet. It only has to connect when used without the phone. And even then, within the parameters of user defined needs. The iPhone has long restricted users with limited functionality to maximize power handling, and shipped it in a default configuration that maximized power needs. Real world power use has never matched Apple's carefully tested estimates. Even now, if an Apple Watch customer uses the watch primarily for voice conversations, the battery will deplete within 3 hours. The important thing is that Apple is including the technology for the times customers need it -- even if most only use it on that rare occasion they need emergency assistance, it's worth having it available. But the reality, many are likely to trade a little battery life for the ability to access data when away from their phone. And as Apple improves performance in other areas, the power drain for cellular radios becomes less of an issue, just as it has for the iPhone over the years. Add to that improvements in battery technology and this is the first step on the path to complete autonomy for a wearable.

 

[groovyd]

But the Apple Watch doesn't really have to yet. It only has to connect when used without the phone. And even then, within the parameters of user defined needs. The iPhone has long restricted users with limited functionality to maximize power handling, and shipped it in a default configuration that maximized power needs. Real world power use has never matched Apple's carefully tested estimates. Even now, if an Apple Watch customer uses the watch primarily for voice conversations, the battery will deplete within 3 hours. The important thing is that Apple is including the technology for the times customers need it -- even if most only use it on that rare occasion they need emergency assistance, it's worth having it available. But the reality, many are likely to trade a little battery life for the ability to access data when away from their phone. And as Apple improves performance in other areas, the power drain for cellular radios becomes less of an issue, just as it has for the iPhone over the years. Add to that improvements in battery technology and this is the first step on the path to complete autonomy for a wearable.

i think people would just complain and return their watches if they added it and it killed the battery after using it for 5 minutes. people start to depend on the freedoms you give them and then they expect the impossible. i just think apple realizes this and doesn't want to include it until it actually has a chance of being useful for more then a few minutes. for this to happen needs to occur a paradigm shift in how cellular communications is currently handled.

 

[UltimaKilo]

I don't understand this line of reasoning -- you're saying Apple is incapable of doing both? Assuming you are correct, adding cellular connectivity actually make the two things in your stated use case better -- the jogger who hits the trail no longer has to carry his cellphone to get notifications during his run, not to mention enabling emergency services as needed, as well as allowing family to track his location as needed. All of which is impossible now. Then there's the added ability to stream music during the jog if they don't like what they recently uploaded to their playlist.

I'm saying that adding LTE would be impracticle: it would add bulk, kill the battery, and add cost for a monthly subscription, not to mention increase the cost of the product itself, which is already expensive for a fitness tracker.

There are other solutions to emergency contact that doesn't require LTE.

 

[Mac 128]

i think people would just complain and return their watches if they added it and it killed the battery after using it for 5 minutes. people start to depend on the freedoms you give them and then they expect the impossible. i just think apple realizes this and doesn't want to include it until it actually has a chance of being useful for more then a few minutes. for this to happen needs to occur a paradigm shift in how cellular communications is currently handled.

Well then that should already be happening with taking calls on the AW, which is only listed at 3 hours, and likely gets much less in real world application, and I'm pretty sure they're not, to say nothing of the other manufacturers currently offering LTE watches. Regardless Apple did that anyway, well before the technology to properly support it was ready, and customers live with the short comings.

I'm saying that adding LTE would be impracticle: it would add bulk, kill the battery, and add cost for a monthly subscription, not to mention increase the cost of the product itself, which is already expensive for a fitness tracker.

There are other solutions to emergency contact that doesn't require LTE.

Solutions like what?

You're throwing road blocks in front of something without explaining why. The reality is, there are already cellular watches comparable to the Apple Watch being sold by Samsung and others in the real world. And Apple is known for their ability to leverage their significant customer base to effect changes within mobile phone companies' offerings. Moreover, they further leverage their massive R&D reserves to effect change in the engineering of such products, like fabricating their own custom W1 bluetooth chip to solve various problems others would face with off the shelf solutions.

Despite Apple's apparent success with the watch, they're still only selling to about .03 percent of the potential user base of a billion iPhone customers. Even if Apple only adds another .01 by expanding the ability of the watch to function without an iPhone to a market that's over 2/3 as large as Apple's, they've made their money back. Argue against it all you want for yourself, but so far I haven't seen a compelling argument against it.

 

[mgauss7]

I am really worried about the health-related consequences of these kind of elektromagnetic waves.

See www.micrawavenews.com
Www.safelevel.com/cellsensor

 

[groovyd]

Well then that should already be happening with taking calls on the AW, which is only listed at 3 hours, and likely gets much less in real world application, and I'm pretty sure they're not, to say nothing of the other manufacturers currently offering LTE watches. Regardless Apple did that anyway, well before the technology to properly support it was ready, and customers live with the short comings.

Only 3 hours is an eternity compared to what it would be with a cellular modem. I agree though the watch is already stretching the practicality of many of it's features and is marginally on the edge of the average consumer not buying into the promise. Apparently though they have made a profitable compromise that appears to be paying off for both them and the customer.

 

[Mac 128]

Only 3 hours is an eternity compared to what it would be with a cellular modem. I agree though the watch is already stretching the practicality of many of it's features and is marginally on the edge of the average consumer not buying into the promise. Apparently though they have made a profitable compromise that appears to be paying off for both them and the customer.

Do you have stats to back that up? The Samsung Gear S3 Frontier with 4G LTE lasts up to 3 days, and real world reports of 1.5 days with LTE standalone (the worst reports I've seen are 12 hours), and that's with a 380mAh battery compared to 42mm AW2 @ 334mAh (that's actually 15mAh less than the difference between the 38mm!). The reviews are generally positive and all praise the battery life. So I'm not sure why you think Apple couldn't achieve the same results.

 

[groovyd]

Do you have stats to back that up? The Samsung Gear S3 Frontier with 4G LTE lasts up to 3 days, and real world reports of 1.5 days with LTE standalone (the worst reports I've seen are 12 hours), and that's with a 380mAh battery compared to 42mm AW2 @ 334mAh (that's actually 15mAh less than the difference between the 38mm!). The reviews are generally positive and all praise the battery life. So I'm not sure why you think Apple couldn't achieve the same results.

you should maybe read the fine print...

''Standalone functionality limited if paired phone is not powered on or connected to a wireless network'' and the fact that the time you are reporting is the time specified without using any LTE, in fact pretty much powered off most of the time if Samsung's 'typical usage' quotes of the past are any indication. Apparently LTE 'standalone' isn't even very functional at all and 1.5 days is an absurdity. I am talking about the time actually spent using the cellular modem not the time the watch sits on the user's wrist who doesn't use that feature. Nowhere does it give this time in any review I have read but I did see one indicate that simply turning on GPS consumes 10% of the battery per hour and to be honest GPS is nothing compared to cellular battery consumption. I just don't think Apple is satisfied by that sort of cellular experience and doesn't think it's users would be either.

 

[Mac 128]

you should maybe read the fine print...

''Standalone functionality limited if paired phone is not powered on or connected to a wireless network'' and the fact that the time you are reporting is the time specified without using any LTE, in fact pretty much powered off most of the time if Samsung's 'typical usage' quotes of the past are any indication. Apparently LTE 'standalone' isn't even very functional at all and 1.5 days is an absurdity. I am talking about the time actually spent using the cellular modem not the time the watch sits on the user's wrist who doesn't use that feature. Nowhere does it give this time in any review I have read but I did see one indicate that simply turning on GPS consumes 10% of the battery per hour and to be honest GPS is nothing compared to cellular battery consumption. I just don't think Apple is satisfied by that sort of cellular experience and doesn't think it's users would be either.

Yup. I read that, and seems to be more about communicating information between the two with the cellular network and handoff, than anything else. I also know that 1.5 days is standby. I also know that the user reviews are overwhelmingly positive on the ATT and TMobile sites, many of which point out that the standalone use Is great. There are plenty of complaints but standalone use doesn't seem to be one of them. Battery life in general is admittedly a complaint, but then they advertise 3 days, and Apple still lowers user expectations to 18 hours?

Again, you've not provided any stats to back up your claim, whatever the actual battery life is when using LTE. I on the other hand have pointed out that Apple is already willing to offer a feature even when it will compromise the device as a whole. GPS is another feature many said Apple wouldn't add and the watch didn't need, that it would suck battery life down in a matter of minutes -- yet another wildly unsupported accusation, which flew in the face of what other smart watches were already offering. I don't see this as being any different, and don't agree with your opinion.

 

[Peter K.]

Maybe there will be a new, cellular-only, 46-inch AW3, whose "huge" battery will handle LTE duties along with the rest of AW's functionality.

 

[Mac 128]

Maybe there will be a new, cellular-only, 46-inch AW3, whose "huge" battery will handle LTE duties along with the rest of AW's functionality.

You say this like Android phones haven't always had bigger batteries than Apple's yet somehow Apple managed better life. Power management, processor efficiency and functionality limitations, as well as user responsibility -- as with all Apple products -- doesn't make this that hard to believe as your sarcasm would imply.