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

Anyone reconsidering going LTE?

S

satchmo

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 6, 2008
5,233
6,114
Canada
Firstly, I can't see myself ever talking into my wrist...of course, everyone also laughed at the thought of holding a large slab of aluminum up to your face.

While I will likely just stick with a non-LTE version for my fitness needs, I can't help but think that LTE on a watch will become the norm...and soon.

I suppose I'm just future proofing and trying to read the tea leaves. It's obvious Apple is pushing LTE not only with stainless steel models, but for revenue in Apple Music services.

Perhaps not so much with AW3, but certainly AW4. And as battery life improves and more efficient processors used, developers will finally jump on board and truly make their apps watch 'first' and not dependant on the iPhone.
 
satchmo said:
Firstly, I can't see myself ever talking into my wrist...of course, everyone also laughed at the thought of holding a large slab of aluminum up to your face.

While I will likely just stick with a non-LTE version for my fitness needs, I can't help but think that LTE on a watch will become the norm...and soon.

I suppose I'm just future proofing and trying to read the tea leaves. It's obvious Apple is pushing LTE not only with stainless steel models, but for revenue in Apple Music services.

Perhaps not so much with AW3, but certainly AW4. And as battery life improves and more efficient processors used, developers will finally jump on board and truly make their apps watch 'first' and not dependant on the iPhone.
Click to expand...


I am sure most people that make phone calls using the AW3 LTE are using Bluetooth headphones. I will only answer without BT headphones if I am in a situation that will not bother others around me and only to say I will call you back.

I mostly got the LTE version for the ability to stream all my music without having my phone with me.
 
(I'm still on a Series 2)

If I weren't living out in the 'burbs where we have to drive to do ANYTHING (a year ago, I was living in downtown Washington, DC, and could go weeks without driving), I would already be out of the house more often without my phone, and would certainly have more use for an LTE-enabled Watch.

As it is now, I would only take advantage of its LTE when going for a walk, jog, or bike ride -- if I can find a good route in this walking-unfriendly area. My phone serves as my GPS and music stash in the car via CarPlay, so it's always with me (and I'm not going to leave it "safely" in the car when parked). We can't bring personal devices such as smartwatches to the office (security reasons), so the AW stays home on workdays.

HOWEVER...

Sometimes I would like to just leave the phone — and its potential for distraction — behind while not removing myself from being reachable by friends and family.

A cellular-enabled smartwatch can do pretty much everything most cell phones did over a decade ago. Wouldn't it be nice, once again, to experience the world outside the bubble of my smartphone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NavySEAL6
Frankfurt said:
No.
Paired with AirPods the S3 LTE is a great tool. Leaving phone tucked away for hours each day.
Thanks, Apple!
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I meant reconsidering and switching to LTE, not whether you regret your LTE purchase.
 
Not at this point. But I do like having the option of toggling LTE on and activated at a later time if One wanted too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImBuz
satchmo said:
Firstly, I can't see myself ever talking into my wrist...of course, everyone also laughed at the thought of holding a large slab of aluminum up to your face.

While I will likely just stick with a non-LTE version for my fitness needs, I can't help but think that LTE on a watch will become the norm...and soon.

I suppose I'm just future proofing and trying to read the tea leaves. It's obvious Apple is pushing LTE not only with stainless steel models, but for revenue in Apple Music services.

Perhaps not so much with AW3, but certainly AW4. And as battery life improves and more efficient processors used, developers will finally jump on board and truly make their apps watch 'first' and not dependant on the iPhone.
Click to expand...

Nice post.

LTE will definitely be the future norm.

I think Apple only sold the SS with LTE because if one is willing to pay extra for SS, those are the same people who would pay $70 extra for LTE. Same reason the higher end watches are only LTE.
 
Nope! I’m loving it. Got to ditch my iPod when going on runs, and I’m on 24/7 duty for my job this week and was able to go running and not have to carry along my big ol’ 7 Plus. Answered calls no problem. Very convenient!
 
  • Like
Reactions: menace3
Took my first a couple of weeks ago on the watch on it's own having a walk, it was actually very workable - we could both hear each other very well.

With my BeatsX the calls are just like using the phone :p
 
I just got mine AW3 2 days ago and love it awesome at the gym today left phone home and listened to music with AirPods nice traveling light without the phone.. and still got text messages and a phone call. :)
 
I don't understand why people are saying the LTE helped them listen to their music without the phone when they are running etc. I have a non LTE and I downloaded my music to my watch. I also can listen to my music when I don't have my phone with me.
 
Yeah u could listen to music as well but the non LTE version has less storage to dump your music. The big thing though is you can stream Apple Music.
 
Last edited:
Meant was nice listening to music and still getting s text or two and did not miss phone calls. Very convenient in such a small package!
 
shooter45acp said:
Meant was nice listening to music and still getting s text or two and did not miss phone calls. Very convenient in such a small package!
Click to expand...

That’s true, and I should clarify that I don’t think it’s necessary to stream music (or anything, really) for long stretches of time. Streaming costs battery life, data charges, etc.

On the other hand, a Nano (or even a Shuffle) lasts for days on a charge, doesn’t need wireless earphones (optional for a Nano, but not usable with a Shuffle), and can live in your gym bag all week.

I’m still old school enough to prefer a dedicated music player like I did with a Walkman or Discman for certain things.
 
For me it's a bit of an experiment. I want to see what will come of it and it creates an opportunity for developers and Apple that I didn't want to miss out on.
 
iamasmith said:
For me it's a bit of an experiment. I want to see what will come of it and it creates an opportunity for developers and Apple that I didn't want to miss out on.
Click to expand...

If you're a developer, the opportunity is there now to make and email app that can connect to multiple accounts and send/receive mail without the iPhone present in any way.
 
BarracksSi said:
1. How much music do I really need?

2. Streamed data ain’t free.
Click to expand...


1. It's not about how much music you really "need". It's about having the option to listen to whatever you want via Apple Music, iTunes music match or Apple Radio.

2. Unlimited Data = free
[doublepost=1510681427][/doublepost]
Mikeeee said:
I don't understand why people are saying the LTE helped them listen to their music without the phone when they are running etc. I have a non LTE and I downloaded my music to my watch. I also can listen to my music when I don't have my phone with me.
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure they meant that the LTE version allowed them to listen to streaming music via Apple music/Radio App
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mikeeee
andresandiego said:
1. It's not about how much music you really "need". It's about having the option to listen to whatever you want via Apple Music, iTunes music match or Apple Radio.

2. Unlimited Data = free
[doublepost=1510681427][/doublepost]


I am pretty sure they meant that the LTE version allowed them to listen to streaming music via Apple music/Radio App
Click to expand...

I think we can argue that to stream, you're likely paying for a service. In addition, you need to pay extra for the LTE-enabled watch + the monthly fee. In that sense, it's not really free. If you already have all the above, then I guess it is.

I also don't see music streaming as a 'game changer'. Being completely phone less, yet fully connected, THAT I think is the big selling point.
 
fedecape said:
I think we can argue that to stream, you're likely paying for a service. In addition, you need to pay extra for the LTE-enabled watch + the monthly fee. In that sense, it's not really free. If you already have all the above, then I guess it is.

I also don't see music streaming as a 'game changer'. Being completely phone less, yet fully connected, THAT I think is the big selling point.
Click to expand...


I can your point about being free.

Streaming music may not be a game changer but it is pretty close to being one. Before I updated to 4.1 I was still taking my phone with me to the gym so I could stream or play any song in my iTunes music match library and Apple Music. I begun to question my reasons for getting the LTE version. But after 4.1 update things became clear why I chose the LTE version.
 
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