Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I know those are just patent application images, but anything implemented looking like that... hot garbage.
You say that but they let the 1st-gen Apple Pencil and 2nd-gen Magic Mouse release and we all know how hideous they looked, especially while charging.
 
Great, now that double loop will have a competitor for the title of freakiest-looking-watchband.

PVZENtN.gif

How are you this good and this quick? I dont get it
 
I can't imagine the degree to which Jean Carroll wishes she had some pictures. Should have worn this Apple watch.
 
When I first saw this I thought "yes, finally, a camera comes to Apple watch".... then I realised that the camera is on the band not the watch ... hmmm..... almost! :(
 
Totally disagree. The watch is virtually an iPhone replacement now. The main thing keeping it from being that is the ability to take photos. People who prize the ability to take photos and videos will always have to keep their phones on them until the watch adds a camera -- and not in the wrist band.

I presume you mean people want to take and immediately be able to share/post photos and videos, otherwise the real solution could be to carry a dedicated camera.
 
Do a search for wireless spy cameras. You will find that Amazon, Newegg and even Walmart already sell small spy cameras, some of which look like lapel pins and not cameras. Go to a dedicated site and I’m sure you can find lots of cameras that will connect to your phone and discretely video whatever the owner wants. And this isn’t new, it’s been available for years. Cameras are getting better resolution and clearer pictures with smaller and smaller lenses and electronics. Something as obvious when being used as this wristband camera would basically be an idiot detector and not a spy camera. And the cameras that don’t stand out like a sore thumb already exist without needing an Apple Watch.
 
If they were to add a camera to the Watch, I think this is exactly how it should be done, for a couple of reasons: First, it addresses the concerns of many people (and businesses, government, etc.) that don't want a camera on their wrist. If it's in the band, you just use another band when you go to work, or if your concern is style, etc. Second, properly positioning the camera really is the trick with something on your wrist, especially since you'd ordinarily want to see the screen at the same time you are holding the camera up. Putting it on the band arguably gives people the best chance of doing that.

What many of us *don't* want to see -- and emphatically don't wan to see -- is a camera on the watch itself.

100% agree with this. Good post.
 
Increasingly, we are becoming a low trust society. No one will like this. We saw how people responded to Google Glasses.
I suppose one possible option would be to give the lens a very limited depth of field so anything more than 3' away from the camera would be at least partially blurred via the bokeh effect. I agree with you about the Google Glass privacy concerns. There were a lot of businesses (especially bars, restaurants and movie theaters) that banned them. I am wondering how Apple is going to overcome those concerns with Apple Glass when it rolls out in 2020 or 2021. I am really looking forward to Apple Glass and I expect Apple will attempt to address the privacy issue, I just have no idea how they will do it.
 
I presume you mean people want to take and immediately be able to share/post photos and videos, otherwise the real solution could be to carry a dedicated camera.

Yes, the people Apple markets and sells iPhones to. In that particular scenario, I'm not sure anyone would want to take a real dedicated SLR-type camera into the ocean for casual Instagram shots either.
[doublepost=1561599874][/doublepost]
I suppose one possible option would be to give the lens a very limited depth of field so anything more than 3' away from the camera would be at least partially blurred via the bokeh effect. I agree with you about the Google Glass privacy concerns. There were a lot of businesses (especially bars, restaurants and movie theaters) that banned them. I am wondering how Apple is going to overcome those concerns with Apple Glass when it rolls out in 2020 or 2021. I am really looking forward to Apple Glass and I expect Apple will attempt to address the privacy issue, I just have no idea how they will do it.

A watch is not a Google Glass. In order to capture a decent photo of someone with a watch, they'll have to hold up their arm like Wonder Woman stopping bullets with her magic cuffs, and their other hand to press the buttons. Otherwise, it's no worse than an iPhone someone can carry around in one hand recording whatever happens to cross in front of the camera.

A camera in a watch will not create the same issues as a Google Glass which has a camera pointed at whatever the wearer looks at, with the subject having no idea whether the camera is on or not.

This is a non-issue as far as privacy concerns go. Apple will market the camera as a built-in selfie taker, conveniently located on the wrist for all those spontaneous moments without the phone present, or tucked away in a pocket or bag. Apple's customers will think this is the best thing ever and not give one thought to how it could be used for nefarious purposes. Just like the iPhone.
 
Didn't one of the early smartwatches have a camera?

You can buy a smartwatch thats a full blown phone with simcard slots, TF card slot, Bluetooth, phone sync, media player / recorder, Camera (480p) and FM freaking radio for around $5 from China these days.

There is also fancy version with a 1.3mp camera that looks like an apple watch for $10

Some technology is crazy cheap these days (And these ones came out 3 yrs ago!)

 
Yes, the people Apple markets and sells iPhones to. In that particular scenario, I'm not sure anyone would want to take a real dedicated SLR-type camera into the ocean for casual Instagram shots either.
[doublepost=1561599874][/doublepost]

A watch is not a Google Glass. In order to capture a decent photo of someone with a watch, they'll have to hold up their arm like Wonder Woman stopping bullets with her magic cuffs, and their other hand to press the buttons. Otherwise, it's no worse than an iPhone someone can carry around in one hand recording whatever happens to cross in front of the camera.

A camera in a watch will not create the same issues as a Google Glass which has a camera pointed at whatever the wearer looks at, with the subject having no idea whether the camera is on or not.

This is a non-issue as far as privacy concerns go. Apple will market the camera as a built-in selfie taker, conveniently located on the wrist for all those spontaneous moments without the phone present, or tucked away in a pocket or bag. Apple's customers will think this is the best thing ever and not give one thought to how it could be used for nefarious purposes. Just like the iPhone.
You could be right - it will all depend on the features Apple allows with a potential AW camera and whether they let 3rd party developers have access to it. I spent a couple days this past week at a pool in Florida and I noticed a lot of people laying around the pool had Apple Watches (I was wearing mine and using it to stream to my AirPods). If the camera in an Apple Watch can shoot video (which I would assume it could) then someone could turn on recording and casually walk by sun bathers with their arm to their side or carrying a drink in their hand while they video other people without their knowledge. Again, it all depends on how the camera functions. A little less risk if the Watch display continuously displays what the camera sees and a greater risk if the display doesn't indicate recording is in progress.
 
You could be right - it will all depend on the features Apple allows with a potential AW camera and whether they let 3rd party developers have access to it. I spent a couple days this past week at a pool in Florida and I noticed a lot of people laying around the pool had Apple Watches (I was wearing mine and using it to stream to my AirPods). If the camera in an Apple Watch can shoot video (which I would assume it could) then someone could turn on recording and casually walk by sun bathers with their arm to their side or carrying a drink in their hand while they video other people without their knowledge. Again, it all depends on how the camera functions. A little less risk if the Watch display continuously displays what the camera sees and a greater risk if the display doesn't indicate recording is in progress.

Yes, and I can do the same thing with an iPhone, and no one would think a thing about it. I was at a pool just today, and people were walking around with their phones in their hands with arms hanging casually by their sides — high quality rear cameras facing out, without anyone being able to see the screen or any recording indicator if it was recording. And yet, nobody thought twice about it. Heck I’ve seen guys in the locker room walk by a row of people undressing carrying their phones in such a manner, without a single person looking up or blinking. I mean anyone who isn't looking over their shoulder for someone carrying an iPhone missed this little headline:

https://www.tmz.com/2016/11/04/dani-mathers-charged-crime-photo-gym-nude-woman/

Putting a camera on a watch is not going to make that kind of thing any easier, or any more violating than the common place devices we have now. And as you point out, the watch facing out will display whatever is being filmed, as there’s no reason to have a camera that takes pictures without an active display. So if people begin abusing watches in this manner and its reported in the news, then people will be even more aware of them and easily spot a an actively filming watch if it’s a concern. Meanwhile, iPhones will continue to be able to stealthily record video of unsuspecting people without any detectable signs.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.