Yea, what is Apple thinking. Remember when they released that MP3 player? I mean really. The only thing worse was the big version of the iPod touch.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Close to Striking Deal with LG Display for iWatch OLED Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea, what is Apple thinking. Remember when they released that MP3 player? I mean really. The only thing worse was the big version of the iPod touch.
They are going OLED because they use far less power on blacks than LCDs do and since watches can be mostly black this will allow them to reduce energy consumption. E-ink would not be good as they are so slow you can't do much cool stuff on an e ink. If you want that just get a pebble. I would rather have monochrome OLED than e-ink, if they make it so it only displays red green or blue and not other colours they could cut power consumption of the display by a lot as well as only one sub-pixel would be powered instead of all 3
I know that many folks think of a phone as a fashion accessory, but to the extent if is, it's absolutely nothing compared to a watch. Mechanical watches still exist (and are thriving) even though the most complex mechanical watch, costing in the hundreds of thousands, can be duplicated functionally by a digital watch cheap enough to include in a cereal box. People wear a watch to tell the time, but people wear a particular watch for its design, prestige, etc.
I doubt a great iWatch (or whatever it may be called) is going to displace a regular timepiece for many folks, and people aren't going to wear two "watch-like" things on their wrists. So I agree with those who believe that timekeeping has to be secondary to an iWatch, and that it needs to bring something very different, functionally and design-wise, to the table. I would wear a regular watch and something like a FuelBand, but I would not wear just a FuelBand because I like my watches.
I doubt a great iWatch (or whatever it may be called) is going to displace a regular timepiece for many folks, and people aren't going to wear two "watch-like" things on their wrists. So I agree with those who believe that timekeeping has to be secondary to an iWatch, and that it needs to bring something very different, functionally and design-wise, to the table. I would wear a regular watch and something like a FuelBand, but I would not wear just a FuelBand because I like my watches.
To be fair, Apple is hit and miss on innovative ideas just like everyone else. Except that when they hit, they hit big time
"A watch like this"? Like what? Have you seen this so called "iWatch" or know what it will or won't do?
Many people still wear watches, even though we carry a phone. It's nice to get a quick glance at the time without having to pull out the phone and push a button to see the time. It's also the only piece of jewelry I wear. I don't have piercings, I don't wear a necklace. I am married, but I don't wear a ring. What I do own is 6 Seiko watches and a fossil watch. I am looking forward to adding some technology to my watch.
Exactly!
What about winter time? What is easier? sliding up your sleeve to see your watch, or pulling up a bulky coat with one hand to get to your jeans pocket with the other?
When skiing? When running? At the gym, I'm leaving my phone in the locker.
Women fumbling with their purse trying to find a ringing phone that takes them 30 seconds to find inside all the zippers and buttons?
There are numerous times where a watch is much better than a phone.
Obviously you can't see the forrest for the trees. You also have a rigid thought process. Just accept it. Anytime someone starts off with "...by definition," it's a clue their mind processes with inflexible rules.
So let me speak your language. Definitions by definition may change as society changes or even among different societies. Gay in 1930 meant something entirely different than it does in 2013. In London a subway is a tube; elevator:lift, and so on.
In 1910 bacon was a lunch or dinner food. In 1940 it was used for all meals. In 1940 orange juice was predominantly for breakfast. In 1980 it was for anytime. Public relations and societal acceptance changed all that.
So when you say a watch by definition is a timepiece you are basically saying it can't ever have another meaning which is false because words are created by humans. The truth is a watch is whatever meaning a society puts on it. A lot of people understand the more modern meaning that it's something worn on the wrist that provides information and other functionality.
Looking at it from another angle, it will be a communications media device that can also tell the time. I am sure that the home screen doesnt have to be a time piece.
I love the idea if this. I mean it may not be functional for everyone,but for me it would be great. I work somewhere where I'm not able to pull my phone out every 5 minutes or at any given time,so to get a notification on my watch would be great. Then I could decide if I need to actually go to my phone or not. I have wireless cameras in my home that will notify me of movement....a notification from my cameras then I'd pull out my phone. If it's a text from a friend I wouldn't bother.
Also I ride my bicycle around the park next to my home...with headphones from my iPhone. So it's a lot easier to look at my watch while riding my bike then pulling out my phone. Maybe I'm in the minority that actually use a watch every single day.
Also I ride my bicycle around the park next to my home...with headphones from my iPhone. So it's a lot easier to look at my watch while riding my bike then pulling out my phone. Maybe I'm in the minority that actually use a watch every single day.
I have like 4 different watches that I rotate through, a Suunto Ambit, a couple TAG's, and a Citizen.
They better think of something other than timekeeping to get me to buy one. I would wear my Ambit over a notification strap anyday. No way it's ever going to replace my TAG's for going out in non-casual situations.
People who don't wear watches are fine, the people who hate on people who wear watches are dumb as bricks.
They better think of something other than timekeeping to get me to buy one. I would wear my Ambit over a notification strap anyday. No way it's ever going to replace my TAG's for going out in non-casual situations.
People who don't wear watches are fine, the people who hate on people who wear watches are dumb as bricks.
Oh great, LG's value/stocks will go up and Apple's doomed as per the usual with this news/rumors/speculation/whatever.
I miss the days when Apple is the underdog though I love (as it is very amusing to watch) that they are up there and on everyone's (haters and fans) radar no matter what they (will/supposedly will) do/doing.
NEXT.
I miss the days when Apple is the underdog though I love (as it is very amusing to watch) that they are up there and on everyone's (haters and fans) radar no matter what they (will/supposedly will) do/doing.
NEXT.
All I want from an iWatch:
8GB memory
Decent music player/controls
Bluetooth to connect wireless headphones
Nike+ stuff
= Perfect Gym/workout device.
Basically I want a sleek iPod Nano/lunatik combo with bluetooth (I am easy to please).
GL
8GB memory
Decent music player/controls
Bluetooth to connect wireless headphones
Nike+ stuff
= Perfect Gym/workout device.
Basically I want a sleek iPod Nano/lunatik combo with bluetooth (I am easy to please).
GL
Brightness, yup.... but wasting power, no. As you don't have a backlight irradiating the read of 'switched off' lcd pixels an oled can be very efficient depending on the design of your UI. Why d'ya think android is predominantly a black background with only a few pixels turned on where something needs to be drawn.
If the UI is only showing a line of text or a simplistic thin icon then OLED would be preferable over lcd as the screen tech of choice.
Last edited:
I just want to see bezel-free screens in iOS devices.
Imagine an iPhone where the top was a single piece of seamless glass (front and back) containing a screen that went right to the edge. The lower part could be metal and house the home button / magnetic charging port / antenna etc.
For the iWatch to sell it would have to be similar with a borderless 360º retina screen. It would probably need to be flexible too.
Imagine an iPhone where the top was a single piece of seamless glass (front and back) containing a screen that went right to the edge. The lower part could be metal and house the home button / magnetic charging port / antenna etc.
For the iWatch to sell it would have to be similar with a borderless 360º retina screen. It would probably need to be flexible too.
4 inches? The iPhone screen is less than 2 inches across. Why not strap an iPad mini to your wrist. Even if it was 4 inches diagonal that would be huge for a watch.
It's so sad that almost no one has any clue what this device will be used for. This device is all about health sensors. The galaxy gear is a companion device (a piece of garbage, and terrible use of the idea of a wearable device), it gives you messages or alerts or whatever meaningless stuff it does which will be a feature of the iWatch, but not the reason it was designed, and brought to market.
A smart person should know that a wearable device that can read and analyze biological markers with high accuracy is literally game changing. It is absolutely the next step I see Apple taking. Non-invasive glucose monitoring alone would be profoundly useful for not only the millions of diabetics, but all people (especially the overweight/obese. Not that they would necessarily have this sensor, but I remember reading they hired someone or bought a company that was working on that.
I'll give a quick example of this saving someone's life (which I did in a previous post in another thread) for the sake of opening people's minds. An elderly person wearing this goes into cardiac arrest, it instantly sends alerts to family members to call 911, or simply alerts emergency services itself. Ever see those commercials for life alert? This can be a tech that can literally save lives.
Last edited:
I think there's a huge amount of scope for functionality/convenience in an "iWatch", mostly just because it's easier & faster to look at your wrist than pull your phone out of your pocket and unlock it.
Even just simple, subtle enhancements to today's functions. Imagine you're lost and using the GPS, it's much easier to glance at your watch then pulling out your phone every few minutes (and looking like a lost tourist in the process).
Imagine you're meeting someone, glance at your phone and it could tell you you're 5 minutes early, and the other person is still 10 minutes away (using the GPS on their iWatch).
It wouldn't need to be a brand-new sector, it's just the form-factor which subtly but importantly changes the utility of the device. The iPhone and iPad are mostly differentiated by size/form factor, but it's enough to dramatically change how/when/where both are used.
Even just simple, subtle enhancements to today's functions. Imagine you're lost and using the GPS, it's much easier to glance at your watch then pulling out your phone every few minutes (and looking like a lost tourist in the process).
Imagine you're meeting someone, glance at your phone and it could tell you you're 5 minutes early, and the other person is still 10 minutes away (using the GPS on their iWatch).
It wouldn't need to be a brand-new sector, it's just the form-factor which subtly but importantly changes the utility of the device. The iPhone and iPad are mostly differentiated by size/form factor, but it's enough to dramatically change how/when/where both are used.
