Apple to Introduce iWatch in September Suggests Apple Journalist John Gruber [Updated]

[IJ Reilly]

What do you think they will call it? Or are you just saying, why call it something it's not, yet?

Not a clue, but I do feel confident in guessing is that it won't be called iWatch. I'm not sure why so many people seem to dislike Gruber, but at least he understands that it would be a weak name for a weak concept. How that basic idea never seems to occur to anyone at MR never fails to amaze.

 

[Dekema2]

Apple to Introduce iWatch in September Suggests Apple Journalist John Gruber

Why? Because it has a round face? The black bar at the bottom is ugly (and yes I know why it's there). The watch itself seems very thick and bulky. I know it would look hideous on my tiny wrist. I can't imagine any females wearing it.

Image

No black bar in these mockups

Of course, they're only mockups; but as you can see, the software looks dramatically different and still usable than the Android stuff. But at the end of the day, typically whatever Apple releases turns out to be awesome anyway, so a rectangular screen

And this still rings true today IMO.

 

[Carlanga]

...history of "inside knowledge" and "sources" within Apple...

There, fixed that for you

 

[Hexiii]

So a 4.7" iPhone 6, an iWatch and no 5.5" iPhone 6. That is what will happen.

Or maybe a 5.5" iWatch

 

[SchneiderMan]

Update 10 PM PT: John Gruber has clarified that he made the statement as a joke and that he does not have any information on Apple's release plans: "By the way, I have no idea whether Apple is planning wrist thing for September or October, just making a joke."

 

[Wiesenlooser]

I do think the 360 is kind of nice but I agree with gruber. That black bar just looks hideous and it will drive me nuts after a while.
I wonder how they are going to release all the products with nearly three months left.

 

[FutureTechHope]

If Apple wants to be original in the 'smart watch' market, make the iWatch "pair-free" or tether free.

 

[andromeda107]

If Apple wants to be original in the 'smart watch' market, make the iWatch "pair-free" or tether free.

Original? They're going to be original in the design, materials, fact that it is for tracking biometrics, among other things. I think it won't require pairing unless you want the functionality of push notifications from your iPhone.

 

[rp2011]

I'd be willing to bet that there will be no 3rd party apps on the iWatch.

I would so take you up on that bet!

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

How have we not seen any leaks yet for the iwatch? The iphone 6 has had so many mockups leaked, but not a single real mockup (that isn't a digital rendering) for the iwatch. You would think parts would have leaked already from component manufacturers if a release is happening this fall.

 

[StyxMaker]

I would so take you up on that bet!

We will, hopefully, soon see who is correct.

 

[rish]

How have we not seen any leaks yet for the iwatch? The iphone 6 has had so many mockups leaked, but not a single real mockup (that isn't a digital rendering) for the iwatch. You would think parts would have leaked already from component manufacturers if a release is happening this fall.

There is no iWatch. It's a hoax.

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

There is no iWatch. It's a hoax.

Are you being serious, or joking?

I am almost certain there will be an iwatch given Cook's statements, meetings with govt. agencies, etc.

Just wondering why not a single part (real part or physical mockup) has been released.

 

[SeaFox]

Why? Because it has a round face? The black bar at the bottom is ugly (and yes I know why it's there). The watch itself seems very thick and bulky. I know it would look hideous on my tiny wrist. I can't imagine any females wearing it.

Image

I think most watches (smart or otherwise) for men look thick and bulky for the same reason. 40mm casings are to watches today what beige towers were to PC's in the 90's. Everyone's doing them, they're unnecessarily large for most users, and they show a lack of originality in product design.

 

[Mike MA]

Haha

 

[Oletros]

So, my conclusion is they've either done something completely new that hasn't been done in healthcare before or these rumors are not true.

Occam's razor

 

[Wiesenlooser]

I think most watches (smart or otherwise) for men look thick and bulky for the same reason. 40mm casings are to watches today what beige towers were to PC's in the 90's. Everyone's doing them, they're unnecessarily large for most users, and they show a lack of originality in product design.

I think you are wrong.And you know nothing about the watch industry.

 

[SeaFox]

I think you are wrong.And you know nothing about the watch industry.

Am I supposed to care what you think?

OMG, some random dolt doesn't agree with me on the Internet.
However the **** will my life be complete now?

Edit: I'm going to expand on this so my post as some substance, unlike yours.

The majority of timepieces only are used to tell the time. Some have the date as well, but a much smaller number have chronographs, secondary clocks (for an alternate time zone) etc. For the majority of fashion watches, they're just a plain clock face and maybe a text day/date wheel.

Take one of these watches and shrink it down to 30 or even 25 mm. It will still be usable for the exact same functions. That larger display wasn't really needed -- thus proving it is unnecessary, as I stated. If you can't read your watch unless it's 4 cm wide you need to get glasses, your eyes should be able to resolve an image smaller that than. Note: if your try to dispute this you'd be arguing that the whole Retina display craze is just marketing BS. To say that your eyes can see the difference between a standard display and a Retina would require acknowledging the true capabilities of a human eye -- making 40 cm larger than needed for a timepiece.

This is much like PC towers in the 90's. Did the majority of users need two 5.25" external bays, and 2 3.5" external bays? NO. Yeah, there's always the use-case for someone with an internal Zip drive, or a second optical drive for copying discs, but for the majority of users they never needed more than the one optical bay or one floppy disk drive. The extra space in the case, much like the extra diameter of the 40mm watch face, was wasted. The motherboard did NOT take up the whole side panel of the case, it could have been a smaller tower and worked fine.

The watches are all 40mm for the same reason the tower cases were all the same "well, that's what our competitors are doing and we don't want to be less than them in the numbers on bullet points. We'd match them and not think in a more original, compact direction. Don't want to make a smaller casing, only women would have a watch that small."

 

[elvislives]

Why? Because it has a round face? The black bar at the bottom is ugly (and yes I know why it's there). The watch itself seems very thick and bulky. I know it would look hideous on my tiny wrist. I can't imagine any females wearing it.

Image

If it looks like that...that will be the beginning of end for Apple.

----------

If you think about it, if they had done the same with the first iPhone, it would have had a keyboard / buttons etc.... I think the design will be something new from what we have seen, ie not round....

 

[Wiesenlooser]

Am I supposed to care what you think?

OMG, some random dolt doesn't agree with me on the Internet.
However the **** will my life be complete now?

Edit: I'm going to expand on this so my post as some substance, unlike yours.

The majority of timepieces only are used to tell the time. Some have the date as well, but a much smaller number have chronographs, secondary clocks (for an alternate time zone) etc. For the majority of fashion watches, they're just a plain clock face and maybe a text day/date wheel.

Take one of these watches and shrink it down to 30 or even 25 mm. It will still be usable for the exact same functions. That larger display wasn't really needed -- thus proving it is unnecessary, as I stated. If you can't read your watch unless it's 4 cm wide you need to get glasses, your eyes should be able to resolve an image smaller that than. Note: if your try to dispute this you'd be arguing that the whole Retina display craze is just marketing BS. To say that your eyes can see the difference between a standard display and a Retina would require acknowledging the true capabilities of a human eye -- making 40 cm larger than needed for a timepiece.

This is much like PC towers in the 90's. Did the majority of users need two 5.25" external bays, and 2 3.5" external bays? NO. Yeah, there's always the use-case for someone with an internal Zip drive, or a second optical drive for copying discs, but for the majority of users they never needed more than the one optical bay or one floppy disk drive. The extra space in the case, much like the extra diameter of the 40mm watch face, was wasted. The motherboard did NOT take up the whole side panel of the case, it could have been a smaller tower and worked fine.

The watches are all 40mm for the same reason the tower cases were all the same "well, that's what our competitors are doing and we don't want to be less than them in the numbers on bullet points. We'd match them and not think in a more original, compact direction. Don't want to make a smaller casing, only women would have a watch that small."

The fact that you are talking about "reading the watch face" just undermines the fact that you nothing about the watch industry.

The watch industry has moved beyond telling the time and date. Watches nowadays are becoming more and more jewelry.

Just take a look at hublot. They have completely black watches. Black watch face, black numbers, etc. does that make it easier to read the time? No.

Larger watches have simply become trendy, it has nothing to do with it being a spec competition. Men seem
To appreciate the larger watches. It's as simple as that.

The iMac screen sizes have become larger as well over a certain time period. Doesn't mean that apple "has no new ideas".

If you don't like larger watches then fine. But don't compare it to beige 90 computer towers because that analogy is pure ********. Some of the finest craftsmanship and design goes into watches nowadays

 

[SMIDG3T]

Of course he doesn't know. It was obvious in the first place.

 

[Atlantico]

A website that refers to Gruber as a journalist, is not completely in touch with reality. To be charitable, he's a blogger that has his opinions on Apple and seems to make money from sharing those opinions on his blog.

 

[SeaFox]

The fact that you are talking about "reading the watch face" just undermines the fact that you nothing about the watch industry.

The watch industry has moved beyond telling the time and date. Watches nowadays are becoming more and more jewelry.

Than why put a watch mechanism in them at all? Why not complete the circle and just make large, ostentatious bracelets for men.

Larger watches have simply become trendy, it has nothing to do with it being a spec competition. Men seem
To appreciate the larger watches. It's as simple as that.

Do they appreciate them because they're trendy or because the selection outside that size is so much smaller? There was someone on Slashdot recently who posted a similar query as to why it's hard to find a smartphone with a slide out Querty keyboard anymore. One strong reason is in a bid to imitate the iPhone, other manufacturers abandoned that form design, regardless of the market for it. Consumers took up touchscreens in droves because suddenly it became difficult to find otherwise in a new device, and most of them didn't care enough one way or the other to truly vote with their wallet -- not necessarily because they preferred touchscreens.

The iMac screen sizes have become larger as well over a certain time period. Doesn't mean that apple "has no new ideas".

Please tell me you're not equating increasing a screen size with "innovation in computer design"

A larger screen offers higher resolution, offering a true benefit in usability to the user. A watch of two sizes with the same functions does not.

If you don't like larger watches then fine. But don't compare it to beige 90 computer towers because that analogy is pure ********. Some of the finest craftsmanship and design goes into watches nowadays

Lots of the computers of the 90's had fine craftsmanship and design -- the 90's Mac desktops especially. That doesn't mean the form of the product wasn't generic in it's own way. A Mercedes SUV can be a vehicle of refined quality and still be more vehicle than most people need (in size).

 

[Piggie]

Two things puzzle and slightly annoy me about these things.

One is the reaction of people here to how these devices currently look, and the other about the manufacture of one aspect of the one I've seen.

Point one is the moaning and whining about how they look in comparison to say a normal timepiece thats been in development for say 40 years digital or a few hundred years mechanical.

HEY...... This is like Mk1 of a new concept people are trying now with today's tech.
I can imagine people here looking at the Wright Brothers 1st Airplane and saying Pah, rubbish is only goes a few yards. How am I going to get all my luggage and my fat families arse onto that think to visit my auntie in Australia.

What do you expect, going to almost nothing to a Boing 757 in one stroke?

Like the people who may moan as Google Glass, or an all electric car.
We are at the beginning and year on year these things will get better and better.
Hey I remember dot matrix colour printers for the home, they were horrid and junk now, but people bought them as it was the best most affordable thing at the time.

So stop moaning, it's not like an iPad poor camera, or no flash unit, or no SD slot, or No stereo speakers, where Apple had DELIBERATELY decided to limit the device, and make it WORSE than it could be. As all those thing could be done if someone at a desk said I want them, and would have virtually zero impact on the device.

This is not like that, they are not making them thick cos they like them thick.
They are pushing what current tech allows them to do, and they will get better generation after generation.


My second point is actually a bit of a criticism to the makers in what I feel is a lost opportunity. THE STRAP.
It seems they are packing all this electronics and battery etc into the watch unit, which is normal. But are ignoring the potential space the strap could offer. Perhaps the strap could be the battery? Perhaps you can embed flexible circuity in the strap?

At the moment, it's not looking like the strap is being considered much.

 

[enricopalazzo]

Do they appreciate them because they're trendy or because the selection outside that size is so much smaller?

The selection is so small because the demand outside of that size is smaller...

There was someone on Slashdot recently who posted a similar query as to why it's hard to find a smartphone with a slide out Querty keyboard anymore. One strong reason is in a bid to imitate the iPhone, other manufacturers abandoned that form design, regardless of the market for it.

Many manufacturers tried to offer slideout-phones with qwerty-keyboards, but they took it off the market when realizing the demand was to small. They went for bigger displays, when they were outselling the smaller ones, this has nothing to with imitating the iphone.

Take one of these watches and shrink it down to 30 or even 25 mm. It will still be usable for the exact same functions. That larger display wasn't really needed -- thus proving it is unnecessary, as I stated. If you can't read your watch unless it's 4 cm wide you need to get glasses, your eyes should be able to resolve an image smaller that than.

It has nothing to do with needs. People won't spend 100$ -1.000.000$ + for watches just to read the time. A 10$ can do that more precise, if you are just into read the time.
Watches can be much more like jewellery, fashion, handmade masterpieces of engineering etc.