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

Anyone getting a watch with no iPhone?

Runt888 said:
The Health app only is included on the iPhone and iPod Touch, not the iPad. Its very possible (I would even say likely) that when the Apple Watch is released you will need to install a new iOS update on your iPhone which includes the Apple Watch software, as opposed to making people download it from the App Store.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see Apple doing something like that, to artificially limit the devices the Apple Watch can work with. I agree that we shouldn't assume that Apple Watch will work with all iOS devices. But I think it's also wrong to assume that it won't, either. We just don't know until Apple announces it one way or other.
 
Night Spring said:
Yes, I can see Apple doing something like that, to artificially limit the devices the Apple Watch can work with. I agree that we shouldn't assume that Apple Watch will work with all iOS devices. But I think it's also wrong to assume that it won't, either. We just don't know until Apple announces it one way or other.
Click to expand...

Apple has announced it - they were pretty clear that you needed an iPhone 5 or newer.
 
Runt888 said:
Apple has announced it - they were pretty clear that you needed an iPhone 5 or newer.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no technical reason why it wouldn't work with iPad Air or newer, right? I'm still holding out hope that it will work with iPads, too, since Apple hasn't said it won't.
 
Night Spring said:
Yes, but no technical reason why it wouldn't work with iPad Air or newer, right? I'm still holding out hope that it will work with iPads, too, since Apple hasn't said it won't.
Click to expand...

No technical reason that I'm aware of, but with them being so specific about it I wouldn't get my hopes up.

As an app developer I can also say that when writing a watch component using the beta sdk, you have to be running an iPhone app along with it.
 
Night Spring said:
iPad, iPod touch and iPhone run the same software, and have almost the same hardware, so what technical reason could there be that the apple Watch will only be able to work with one of them?
Click to expand...

No they don't. Stocks, Weather, Health,.... need I go on?

If the :apple:Watch (Master/Control) App is iPhone ONLY, then it will require an iPhone. So there could be a technical reason it is iPhone only if there is NO App for the iPad or Touch.
 
Night Spring said:
Yes, but no technical reason why it wouldn't work with iPad Air or newer, right? I'm still holding out hope that it will work with iPads, too, since Apple hasn't said it won't.
Click to expand...

They won't.

I foresee support for the iPad in the future, as the device becomes more independent, but not for at least a year or two.

There might not be an obvious technical reason (there could be), but there are a slew of practical reasons. People get upset because it's not a technological wall, but we're talking about the finite resources of a company about to launch into a new product category, too.

  • Out of the gate,  Watch is very dependent on your iDevice, even for things like Internet. So an iPhone that is connected 100% of the time to the web will prevent many hiccups, especially for a device that is new to market and people don't fully understand, yet.
  • iPhones will be with, and close, to their owners much more than than iPad owners will be with their iPads.
  • They're crafting new applications for iPhone to support  Watch. While they can best be written for iPad, it's easiest to focus on one before shifting to the other (many app devs do this).
  • With the above point, iOS for iPad and iPhone are independent builds. They share frameworks, but adding new components to both consumes developer resources that could be allocated towards the watch/iPhone before launch.
  • Many (or maybe even a majority?) of iPad users also own iPhones.
  • The iPhone app market is huge & Apple's dominant App Store - to develop for the  Watch one must start with their iOS application. iPhone has a larger degree of developers, who also consider the iPhone their primary development platform while the iPad is secondary.

I can think of more, but these are just a couple.
 
Last edited:
matt9013 said:
For most things yeah but just for the basic watch features like time pieces, telling time etc you don't need the phone. Or I don't think you would as all I want is the time. I don't expect GPS, chat etc to work.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a waste of money to me. Do you find the Apple Watch to be so stylish, that you would buy one to use a simple watch? I don't.

Anyway, I thought the whole purpose of owning one was to use smartwatch features (whatever those are :p)
 
matt9013 said:
Pretty much my reasoning. $350 is nothing compared to the thousand dollar Rolex's or other high end watches. I don't plan on selling it so value going down doesn't bother me. Just something cool to have and wear.
Click to expand...

You won't be spending $350 unless you have very small, feminine hands and wrists. Minimum price for the Apple Watch (for the majority of men) will be $400+tax. So $450 out the door for the cheapest model. See image below for difference in size.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    159.1 KB · Views: 142
Last edited:
Lloydbm41 said:
You won't be spending $350 unless you have very small, feminine hands and wrists. Minimum price for the Apple Watch (for the majority of men) will be $400+tax. So $450 out the door for the cheapest model. See image below for difference in size.
Click to expand...

Source? While I believe this to be likely you are making it as a statement of fact when you don't or can't know this.

Also there are states in the US that don't have sales tax. So in Oregon for example the 'out the door' complete price for a 42mm Sport could be less than $350 at $349.
 
Lloydbm41 said:
You won't be spending $350 unless you have very small, feminine hands and wrists. Minimum price for the Apple Watch (for the majority of men) will be $400+tax. So $450 out the door for the cheapest model. See image below for difference in size.
Click to expand...

Julien said:
Source? While I believe this to be likely you are making it as a statement of fact when you don't or can't know this.

Also there are states in the US that don't have sales tax. So in Oregon for example the 'out the door' complete price for a 42mm Sport could be less than $350 at $349.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with Julien - please don't state rumors and congectures as fact. No one outside of apple has any idea what the pricing will be.

I also happen to think that both sizes will be priced the same, except for possibly the gold Edition watch.
 
I was just guessing on the price of the watch being $350. As it stands not to many people seem interested in these things so I can't really see Apple going for a high price point for the most basic watch.

As for the watch itself. It's just something to use for awhile and to add to my collection. I'm not getting it for style or anything. Just a cool watch to add to my collection. I won't be buying the newest version each year. Just a one and done type thing.
 
I'm considering getting one, but have zero interest in its remote control phone accessory features. I only really see it as a possible replacement for my large waterproof armband + iPod + headphone cable combo while running. If I can replace the whole setup with a slick little watch and some Bluetooth earbuds, I'm tempted.

I'm curious to know more about things like how much storage it has, and how it gets songs on it in the first place (pulling some kind of random selection off your phone every time it comes within range would be cool, like the iPod shuffle with iTunes). But as is, I wouldn't be planning on ever having my iPhone and Apple Watch on me at the same time.
 
Lloydbm41 said:
You won't be spending $350 unless you have very small, feminine hands and wrists. Minimum price for the Apple Watch (for the majority of men) will be $400+tax. So $450 out the door for the cheapest model. See image below for difference in size.
Click to expand...

Get real man! You are pulling rabbits out of hats just to justify your OWN opinion! What a load of bs.
 
Defender2010 said:
Get real man! You are pulling rabbits out of hats just to justify your OWN opinion! What a load of bs.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't think that assessment is far off. I would be willing to bet the 42mm will cost more, and $50 extra doesn't seem that far off. Plus, most people will want at least one other band than the one it comes with. I think $450-$500 after tax is very likely for most people, seeing as most likely the 42mm Sport will be the most popular model, and most people will probably buy one extra strap. Think about it:

$399 (42mm watch) + $49 (leather strap) = $448. Add tax and you are between $450 and $500. Obviously, this is speculation, but I don't think it is that far off.
 
Cashmonee said:
Really? I don't think that assessment is far off. I would be willing to bet the 42mm will cost more, and $50 extra doesn't seem that far off. Plus, most people will want at least one other band than the one it comes with. I think $450-$500 after tax is very likely for most people, seeing as most likely the 42mm Sport will be the most popular model, and most people will probably buy one extra strap. Think about it:

$399 (42mm watch) + $49 (leather strap) = $448. Add tax and you are between $450 and $500. Obviously, this is speculation, but I don't think it is that far off.
Click to expand...

I listen to rumours based on substance rather than speculation by Joe Blow. Time will tell.
 
Defender2010 said:
I listen to rumours based on substance rather than speculation by Joe Blow. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Oxymoron. 'Rumors based off substance'. LOL

So if I say an inside source of Apple said this or that, then you'll believe it? Insert eye roll here. Don't worry, I'll keep this thread alive when the watch is released.
 
Lloydbm41 said:
Oxymoron. 'Rumors based off substance'. LOL

So if I say an inside source of Apple said this or that, then you'll believe it? Insert eye roll here. Don't worry, I'll keep this thread alive when the watch is released.
Click to expand...

Example-
Rumour based on substance: "there is an iPad Pro coming" source: leaked schematics from Foxxconn.

Rumor based on nothing: prices listed by user in post #33.

There is a difference. Maybe you are the one that does not see it.
Yes- let's see when Apple Watch comes out if said user was correct or simply guessing (as we know they are)
The difference between substance based and total guesses is quite clear. Maybe check your definition of Oxymoron. This site is built from rumours based on substance. Be it analysts, factory leaks, previous release patterns or other insider leaks. If it wasn't we could make up whatever rumor we want!
Tell me, is the rumor below based on substance or not?
"Apple to release 30 inch table top iPad" - answer: based on nothing!!
Let's continue this in Feb/March.
 
Last edited:
JarScott said:
OP, get an iPhone. :cool:
Click to expand...
I already have a Galaxy S3 and truth is I hate phones. I hardly use my phone as it is now and just don't need a new one.

I just want to be able to use the watch to tell time, listen to music over bluetooth, camera at times and that's about it. I don't mind Apple requiring the iPhone for other features but find it funny that they may require it for all features, even ones that don't need an iPhone really.
 
Julien said:
What does having an :apple:Watch have to do with this since it doesn't have a camera?

EDIT: Also how do you propose to put music on the :apple:Watch without an iPhone?:eek:
Click to expand...
My bad I thought it had a camera attached. Putting music on the watch would be through USB and iTunes.
 
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