I bought my Apple Watch in September 2015 with AppleCare +, which gives me protection through September 2017. I'm not going to buy another watch until then and at that point, the Apple Watch 3 will be out or a few months away. A new $800 watch isn't a yearly purchase for most people.
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 Watch 2 Expected to Focus on Internal Upgrades Rather Than External Changes, Launch in Late 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That depends on how appealing the next iPhone is. Some people may prefer the Apple Watch 2 to an iPhone that looks similar to the 6/6s.
Until it gets me 1 week of battery life I'm not seeing the point
[doublepost=1460410594][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1460410594][/doublepost]
You know a $50 fitbit does that right? Oh and it lasts 1 week on battery
Yeah, reality has really taken the wind out of the sails of smart watches. Maybe if like you said the Apple Watch become more autonomous it would look more appealing, but that's a big 'if' at this point.
Acute inhalation of high concentrations [of elemental mercury] causes a wide variety of cognitive, personality, sensory, and motor disturbances. Obviously.
And there are plenty of people who own fashion watches that all do essentially the same thing, with the distinction being their look. Even Movado makes dozens of different variations on its basic design, some with or without additional features, offering something for everyone, and a reason to own more than one.
Apple shouldn't ignore that fundamental choice for customers of wearables, especially with an entire watch industry demonstrating that principle in action.
Nor should Apple try to cram everything into one device. Why can't there be a Sport watch that offers different features for specific tasks, like GPS? Just like you have various "jewelry" watches that you wear depending on the occasion?
An iPhone is a commodity, the sales of a single unit benefits all users whether a particular customer needs a particular feature or not. But a watch is a personal expression of individuality -- and at this point in our technological development, constricted by what utility it can offer. Hence hefty diving watches, and wafer thin elegant formal watches, etc.
Apple has stepped into the deep end here, and should probably embrace the thing that has driven the watch business, and indeed the jewelry and fashion business for years, and give the customer the choice they demand for something they are going to wear, not just pay lip-service to the idea Jony Ive has acknowledged, but not necessarily delivered upon.
It's water-resistant not waterproof. I want to be able use it while swimming.
not sure it means much to you, but I wear mine for casual swimming all the time (such as 30-60 min swims in the pool).
Just keep in mind, Apple does not recommend this... and probably won't warranty it, so use it at your own risk. I personally have had no problems since day 1.
.
Last edited:
I wouldn't risk it.In any case ideally, which technically is quite difficult, it would be amazing if it were both waterproof and the Heart Rate Monitor was working. You can do that with a Garmin but it has a chest strap.
Perhaps that's because there's only one main Apple watch style to choose from so far and they all act the same
If there were more choices, you might get more of them, same as you bought multiple bands.
Similarly, I have multiple Android watches of various shapes and styles, which lets me pick the one that suits me for the day. I can also just swap one out for a freshly charged one in an instant.
I agree with those who think Apple is missing a huge opportunity to grab more sales by putting out multiple styles.
That thing is hideous! From a design standpoint I have seen much better looking $10 casio watches. As for functionality I can not say either way.
It is true - and I can certainly (and have been) be called a "fanboy"... I basically own one of every product Apple makes.
Note: I would not be _mad_ at Apple if they change the band connector (I'm that big of a fan!)... I would simply bide my time with my existing Watch and bands until I felt like I had gotten my money's worth out of them and then upgraded.
You can't get upset with this stuff with Apple. They like to change things... it's what they do. It's one of the reasons I like to buy their stuff (it's always forward thinking, and targeted at niches instead of mass market plastic bricks). But it does come with certain consequences.
Currently I would put it at a 75% chance that the new Watch will work with the old bands...
If you think about it, you have to hold your arm up in an uncomfortable position during FaceTime calls on your phone, so I don't believe it'll be an issue for a Smart Watch. I believe it's most definitely going to happen. I think that's one of the most top features people would want, especially if Apple makes it thinner/lighter and expands the screen sizes! (FaceTime, Skype, etc.)
You can answer phone calls on a $50 fitbit? I had no idea. But in all honesty, the price really makes no difference to me, I'm not a kid playing video games, I am a grown up with a real job, so $50 or $400 it's all the same to me.
[doublepost=1460424199][/doublepost]
Just looked at Fitbit website and the only product that was close to $50 was $59 and only counted steps. None of the devices are able to take a phone call.
I would never sleep with any watch on, so placing it on charge on the night stand and using it as I night clock is something I would do even if the battery lasted 2 years.
Oh, I also do Apple pay with it often, and have already when my phone was left at home.
If you think about it, you have to hold your arm up in an uncomfortable position during FaceTime calls on your phone, so I don't believe it'll be an issue for a Smart Watch. I believe it's most definitely going to happen. I think that's one of the most top features people would want, especially if Apple makes it thinner/lighter and expands the screen sizes! (FaceTime, Skype, etc.)
As a Gen 1 owner I can say that Facetime on the Watch _is_ something I'm looking forward to and would push me to upgrade. My wife and I use Facetime more than regular calling... and it's annoying to not be able to at least answer the call.
If it looks like the conversation is going to take a while then I can always pull out my phone... but most of the time it's just a quick "hi", etc.
They will, but they should make that explicit now so people keep buying the bands.
[doublepost=1460426157][/doublepost]
I see them daily in Chicago and NYC as well.
I don't get it. This isn't a product category that needs annual updates, and even with the purported new features (ability to be fully untethered from an iPhone, FaceTime camera, etc), those features would likely require substantial amounts of additional power, which the tiny battery inside the Watch wouldn't be able to support for any decent period of time. Saying "hey, you can make and receive FaceTime Video calls on this thing now" won't matter in the slightest if you could only do so for a short period of time prior to the watch needing to enter Power Reserve.
Help me understand.
Help me understand.
That tilt you're experiencing is due to the movement of the Apple Watch displays to the back of the Apple stores.
Why does anyone need to make a phone call on their watch? Since when is that the primary feature? You know the thing that will drain the watch in less than 3 hours if you actually use it a lot?
It's called restraint. The Watch already allows a massive power sucking app in allowing customers to make phone calls. It's a feature one uses for convenience. Likewise with FaceTime. The watch allows you to take the call quickly, then dig out your phone or go find it, then hand the call off if it's going to go on for a while. That's the entire premise of the watch -- that you don't have to use your phone.
And yes, the watch does require periodic updates with new features. Why wouldn't it? Everybody buys the watch for something different. Many people passed on the watch this first time around because it lacks GPS. Apple ads it, they get those people who might otherwise go to the competition. It doesn't matter if you don't use it. It's what motivates someone else. And I'm not even touching on the fashion angle which is at least as important if not more so to selling a product someone wears, whether it is to you personally or not.
Last edited:
And now iPad sales are dropping quarter after quarter.
[doublepost=1460431107][/doublepost]
I actually saw my first one in the wild yesterday.
Umm...clearly you care by commenting on this post and reading this rumor. Please leave or I'm calling the Troll Police on you. Leave the Watch viewers to make concrete posts.
[doublepost=1460443032][/doublepost]
It looks like my $20.00 Timex. I'm sure it works well, but that thing is ugly. Just sayin.
If "showing the time constantly" is your primary demand, a 10€ Casio does it even much more inexpensively. Android watches may be compatible with iOS nowadays, but that is quite different from being as deeply integrated as the Apple Watch.
You mean, like the cellphone market prior to the iPhone? Yeah - everyone back then had a a couple of cellphones to cover various use scenarios ... NOT!
Apple did not shake up the cellphone industry by simply copying its structures.
Because the target group owning "various 'jewelry' watches" is already well catered for by the existing watch industry. Apple would have to enter a price war they couldn't win.
I fail to see the difference you claim.
And become yet another "me too" company that will fade faster than it entered? Hopefully Apple won't make this huge mistake!
Absolutely! Let's call them AppleWatch Classic, SE, LC, IIc, IIgs, Centris, Quadra and Performa.
They should also license watchOS and the Apple Watch hardware to 3rd party manufacturers, so they can further increase Sales numbers by having cheap Apple Watch clones available.
Perhaps they could even lure Michael Spindler and Gil Amelio out of retirement. They know Apple well and the company could profit from their historically proven management expertise.