Apple Watch 2 Not Likely to See March Debut [Updated]

[Michael Goff]

I really saddens me that Apple thinks someone would buy a new watch every year. They've updated the Thunderbolt display with variants without calling it Thunderbolt display 2, 3, 4, etc. Why can't they do the same for the Apple Watch.

If Apple releases a new watch this year, it won't be focused on being sold to those that bought the first. It will be to get new customers that didn't buy the first. It's like how they release a phone every year. They know there will be some that buy one every year, but more than likely they'll get new customers that didn't buy the previous year.

 

[weintrw]

A December rumor pointed towards a possible March 2016 event to unveil a next-generation Apple Watch, but information shared today by TechCrunch's Matthew Panzarino suggests a redesigned second-generation Apple Watch will not be coming so early in the year. That conflicts with some recent rumors suggesting trial production on the Apple Watch 2 is set to begin soon.

Citing several sources with knowledge of Apple's plans, Panzarino says that while new design partnerships and accessories are a possibility for March, a second-generation Apple Watch is not expected. There is, however, a potential March event in the works, but it is not clear what would be launched at that time. New Macs and the rumored 4-inch iPhone 6c are possibilities.

To further back up his claims, Panzarino says supply chain checks have not indicated that production on a second-generation Apple Watch has begun and there's been no "major action" on the software development side that would point towards the possibility of a newly redesigned Apple Watch debuting in the next few months.The Apple Watch, introduced in April of 2015, is a new product category for Apple so its upgrade cycle is difficult to determine. With the iPhone, Apple introduces updates on a yearly basis, but if no second-generation Apple Watch comes out in March, it is not clear when a new version will debut. As Panzarino says, an update alongside the iPhone 7 in September is a possibility, putting the Apple Watch on an 18-month upgrade cycle.

As further evidence that an Apple Watch 2 might not come until later in 2016, we have not seen any concrete rumors about features that might included in a second-generation device and there have been no schematics or part leaks that we might expect to see just a few months ahead of the launch of an updated device.

Update: Panzarino has updated his report to indicate he has heard new information suggesting an interim Apple Watch update could come at the March event but only include "a FaceTime camera and not much else." It would not be a full "Apple Watch 2.0."

Article Link: Apple Watch 2 Not Likely to See March Debut [Updated]

 

[badboy600]

Not sure why people think apple is releasing another watch this year. That is definitely not a product that should receive yearly updates

 

[SHNXX]

Not sure why people think apple is releasing another watch this year. That is definitely not a product that should receive yearly updates

why not?
just like with iphones, this is a product that benefits from chips, new screens, small improvements in battery, new advancements in sensors, miniaturization of all of the above.
what you said would only make sense if we consider the Apple watch as just a watch.

 

[BarracksSi]

why not?
just like with iphones, this is a product that benefits from chips, new screens, small improvements in battery, new advancements in sensors, miniaturization of all of the above.
what you said would only make sense if we consider the Apple watch as just a watch.

The iPhone hasn't had a substantial screen change since the iPhone 4 and its Retina Display; despite larger sizes, the pixel density hasn't increased since then. The AW wouldn't -- or, I'll say, shouldn't -- get any bigger, so it has no reason to update just for a bigger display.

Lithium-ion battery chemistry hasn't really changed since the 1990's, either. Nothing new is ready for production, especially at the volumes Apple sells. Revisit this idea after the year 2020, I'd guess.

New chips aren't terribly necessary because there isn't much for them to do, at least when compared to phones or tablets. If Apple can jam a 64-bit SiP in there and somehow increase power efficiency, that's fine.

There isn't much remaining that's worth miniaturizing. The Taptic Engine can't be smaller because it needs enough mass to be felt (but what if the oscillator is made of tungsten?), and the battery won't be smaller (can you imagine Schiller boasting, "We reduced the battery size by fifty percent"?). Because the AW has limited radio needs, there is no need to keep up with evolving LTE standards like all phones need to do regularly.

I'd equate the Watch more with an iPod than an iPhone. I've opined elsewhere that Apple killed the watch-like 6th generation Nano as soon as they felt ready to start working on a smartwatch, too. There's only so many tasks worth doing with such a small device -- cameras are a bad idea for many reasons, and pie-in-the-sky wishes like holographic projection keyboards are just plain stupid -- I don't expect much to be added to the Watch anytime in the next few years.

But, as always, if Apple manages to create a major update which works, it'll be a hit.

 

[AleXXXa]

Except the iPad 4.

Yeah, because ipad 3 was absolutely terrible (thicker, heavier, slower and had less battery life than ipad2) they had to release a new one earlier.

 

[SHNXX]

The iPhone hasn't had a substantial screen change since the iPhone 4 and its Retina Display; despite larger sizes, the pixel density hasn't increased since then. The AW wouldn't -- or, I'll say, shouldn't -- get any bigger, so it has no reason to update just for a bigger display.

Lithium-ion battery chemistry hasn't really changed since the 1990's, either. Nothing new is ready for production, especially at the volumes Apple sells. Revisit this idea after the year 2020, I'd guess.

New chips aren't terribly necessary because there isn't much for them to do, at least when compared to phones or tablets. If Apple can jam a 64-bit SiP in there and somehow increase power efficiency, that's fine.

There isn't much remaining that's worth miniaturizing. The Taptic Engine can't be smaller because it needs enough mass to be felt (but what if the oscillator is made of tungsten?), and the battery won't be smaller (can you imagine Schiller boasting, "We reduced the battery size by fifty percent"?). Because the AW has limited radio needs, there is no need to keep up with evolving LTE standards like all phones need to do regularly.

I'd equate the Watch more with an iPod than an iPhone. I've opined elsewhere that Apple killed the watch-like 6th generation Nano as soon as they felt ready to start working on a smartwatch, too. There's only so many tasks worth doing with such a small device -- cameras are a bad idea for many reasons, and pie-in-the-sky wishes like holographic projection keyboards are just plain stupid -- I don't expect much to be added to the Watch anytime in the next few years.

But, as always, if Apple manages to create a major update which works, it'll be a hit.

I disagree completely.

I think since the retina display, the iPhone has improved quite a lot in terms of speed, camera etc. There is a lot of improvements apple can make upon a first generation device.
In addition to miniaturizing or improving the performance of accelerometer, gyroscope, heart rate monitor, they can also add more sensors which have been used in other similar devices.
Apple can also make significant improvements on the watchOS in ways that are incompatible with the current hardware.

The bottom line is that we should recognize that this is a first generation computing device from Apple and large improvements are expected in 2nd or 3rd iteration.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that just because the form factor is watch, we won't see such iterations we've seen in almost every single device prior to the Apple watch.

 

[BarracksSi]

The iPhone speed increases have given us insane polygon counts for gaming, but basic tasks like typing and reading email hasn't gotten any faster. Web browsing speed is still largely based on data network speed (the CPU isn't the bottleneck), so I don't think it would apply to the watch, either.

My point is, nobody's going to play Real Racing on the AW, nor are they going to build spreadsheets or multitrack recordings, regardless of how much faster the AW could possibly get.

There aren't many noninvasive medical sensors to add, either. I know, they supposedly wanted to have the LEDs work as an oximeter, too, but such a function is hardly a resource hog, right?

What are they going to add to WatchOS? Transparencies? Moving backgrounds? I don't see why.

I just don't see why people are getting all bent out of shape by worrying about a massive hardware upgrade every year or two. I think it's pretty damned good right now.

 

[nicho]

The iPhone speed increases have given us insane polygon counts for gaming, but basic tasks like typing and reading email hasn't gotten any faster. Web browsing speed is still largely based on data network speed (the CPU isn't the bottleneck), so I don't think it would apply to the watch, either.

My point is, nobody's going to play Real Racing on the AW, nor are they going to build spreadsheets or multitrack recordings, regardless of how much faster the AW could possibly get.

There aren't many noninvasive medical sensors to add, either. I know, they supposedly wanted to have the LEDs work as an oximeter, too, but such a function is hardly a resource hog, right?

What are they going to add to WatchOS? Transparencies? Moving backgrounds? I don't see why.

I just don't see why people are getting all bent out of shape by worrying about a massive hardware upgrade every year or two. I think it's pretty damned good right now.

you took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[OllyW]

I just don't see why people are getting all bent out of shape by worrying about a massive hardware upgrade every year or two. I think it's pretty damned good right now.

Even if you don't want the hardware updated, which seems a bit odd for a tech product, what about different designs? Do you want Apple to stick with the current single design for the next two years? I not sure relying on new strap options and different metal finishes will be enough to keep the product fresh and desirable for too long.

 

[BarracksSi]

Even if you don't want the hardware updated, which seems a bit odd for a tech product, what about different designs? Do you want Apple to stick with the current single design for the next two years? I not sure relying on new strap options and different metal finishes will be enough to keep the product fresh and desirable for too long.

We could look to the traditional watch brands for examples of evolving wristwatch fashion.

I don't think such a comparison would help, though. Some brands change their style every year, but others barely change over fifty years. The Speedmaster or Datejust you can buy today look like the ones sold decades ago.

 

[OllyW]

I don't think such a comparison would help, though. Some brands change their style every year, but others barely change over fifty years. The Speedmaster or Datejust you can buy today look like the ones sold decades ago.

They do look the same but they are not the only watches sold by Omega and Rolex. If you don't like the way Apple Watch looks you haven't got any other options to choose from.

 

[Mac 128]

Even if you don't want the hardware updated, which seems a bit odd for a tech product, what about different designs? Do you want Apple to stick with the current single design for the next two years? I not sure relying on new strap options and different metal finishes will be enough to keep the product fresh and desirable for too long.

Agreed. Personally, I think the current watch already looks dated. Unfortunately, they revealed it 7 months before they started selling it, so as a result it already felt like it'd been around for almost a year. At this point from a strictly fashion perspective, it's retro round-rect lines feel like last year's model. That doesn't mean it won't be a "classic", and a look they keep around for years. In fact I expect they will continue to sell the 1st Gen Watch right alongside the 2nd Gen, when it's released.

Moreover, it's not just about fashion. One of the biggest complaints, even from die-hard Watch owners is speed, particularly of third-party apps. It's going to need faster processors at a minimum, but also new features to help drive sales and new adopters. GPS is going to be one such update. I will actually be surprised if GPS is not included with the 2nd Gen Watch. I also think we'll see a "selfie" FaceTime camera, but the absence of that in the next model wouldn't surprise me as much as GPS and better water-resistance.

 

[BarracksSi]

They do look the same but they are not the only watches sold by Omega and Rolex. If you don't like the way Apple Watch looks you haven't got any other options to choose from.

So? The straps and bracelets aren't enough?

The watch "head" itself doesn't look like much of anything. It's just a rounded metal-and-glass bar of soap. Most of the visual flair gets done by the face and straps. People can add cases if they want, too, like one of the forum members who posted their collection of twenty-something straps and a couple handfuls of bumper cases.

 

[nicho]

Even if you don't want the hardware updated, which seems a bit odd for a tech product, what about different designs? Do you want Apple to stick with the current single design for the next two years? I not sure relying on new strap options and different metal finishes will be enough to keep the product fresh and desirable for too long.

A round watch, for example, may not have a hardware "upgrade" so much as a repackaging if it isn't to lose any functionality over the current one. Perhaps it might update a year later than the regular Apple Watch each time. Think iPad vs iPad mini.

 

[WLS]

I'm on the fence. Don't want a gen 1 device and want it to sync with ipod touch and/or ipad. If they do a refresh in March with that software update and an improved processor with GPS and I'm sold.

 

[Mac 128]

I'm on the fence. Don't want a gen 1 device and want it to sync with ipod touch and/or ipad. If they do a refresh in March with that software update and an improved processor with GPS and I'm sold.

You know I was just looking at the iPod Touch specs this morning. The previous gen uses the same A5 as the 4S, which can't be paired with an Watch. And really the update was mainly a processor upgrade which makes it functionally similar to the iPhone 5 series which can be paired with the watch. Makes me think the reason for that update was so they could offer pairing with a gen 2 watch, once it was more autonomous. And GPS would allow it to be. It's virtually autonomous now, with most primary functions being available over a Wifi connection without the phone being on, or present. So for someone who mainly uses the watch at home and office, or even in the car with a hotspot, or any merchant with pubic wifi, the watch will be able to do everything it can do with the iPhone. Many people who do not own iPhones, do own iPads, iPod Touches, and Macs. So that would help open up the watch to a much bigger market. And why wouldn't they, especially after making it available at Wal-Mart to help drive sales?

 

[zhenya]

Agreed. Personally, I think the current watch already looks dated. Unfortunately, they revealed it 7 months before they started selling it, so as a result it already felt like it'd been around for almost a year. At this point from a strictly fashion perspective, it's retro round-rect lines feel like last year's model. That doesn't mean it won't be a "classic", and a look they keep around for years. In fact I expect they will continue to sell the 1st Gen Watch right alongside the 2nd Gen, when it's released.

Moreover, it's not just about fashion. One of the biggest complaints, even from die-hard Watch owners is speed, particularly of third-party apps. It's going to need faster processors at a minimum, but also new features to help drive sales and new adopters. GPS is going to be one such update. I will actually be surprised if GPS is not included with the 2nd Gen Watch. I also think we'll see a "selfie" FaceTime camera, but the absence of that in the next model wouldn't surprise me as much as GPS and better water-resistance.

I don't know in what world the AW can already look dated. I mean, what else is there in smart watch design? The vast majority of smart-watches sold today are primarily fitness devices that are functionally very good, but the AW looks great compared to any of them.

I think the AW2 will get new processors and improved and maybe additional sensors, but I can't see it getting GPS. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Apple likes the fact that you are tied to your iPhone for most AW uses, and getting the GPS in there is going to mean sacrifices elsewhere.

 

[vdgroodt]

Without an Apple Watch 2 there will be NO March/April event!

What are they gonna introduce? An new 4" iPhone with outdated internals (rumors say A8), and a "catch up" iPad Air 3. Even if they have incredible MacBook Pro updates it won't save the event.

So what could excite you ? I got to say if there will be new macbooks they will be amazing..

 

[OllyW]

So? The straps and bracelets aren't enough?

The watch "head" itself doesn't look like much of anything. It's just a rounded metal-and-glass bar of soap. Most of the visual flair gets done by the face and straps. People can add cases if they want, too, like one of the forum members who posted their collection of twenty-something straps and a couple handfuls of bumper cases.

Sorry, I just don't like how it looks. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's still got the same shaped case.

And bumper cases on a watch, please don't go there.

 

[GadgetBen]

Panzarino has updated his report to indicate he has heard new information suggesting an interim Apple Watch update could come at the March event but only include "a FaceTime camera and not much else."

This guy hasn't got a clue. Why are his words being reported on??!

His 'advice' is clearly as good as anyone on this forum!

I will update everyone. From my official contacts I have heard for sure that the Apple Watch will have an update and will include GPS and a WIFI chip but no FaceTime camera and will be announced in the March event.

This is official

 

[WLS]

You know I was just looking at the iPod Touch specs this morning. The previous gen uses the same A5 as the 4S, which can't be paired with an Watch. And really the update was mainly a processor upgrade which makes it functionally similar to the iPhone 5 series which can be paired with the watch. Makes me think the reason for that update was so they could offer pairing with a gen 2 watch, once it was more autonomous. And GPS would allow it to be. It's virtually autonomous now, with most primary functions being available over a Wifi connection without the phone being on, or present. So for someone who mainly uses the watch at home and office, or even in the car with a hotspot, or any merchant with pubic wifi, the watch will be able to do everything it can do with the iPhone. Many people who do not own iPhones, do own iPads, iPod Touches, and Macs. So that would help open up the watch to a much bigger market. And why wouldn't they, especially after making it available at Wal-Mart to help drive sales?

I agree entirely. I bought the newest Touch and have two Ipads but no Iphone . An apple watch that could sync with my cellular ipad would be just logical.

 

[Mac 128]

I don't know in what world the AW can already look dated. I mean, what else is there in smart watch design? The vast majority of smart-watches sold today are primarily fitness devices that are functionally very good, but the AW looks great compared to any of them.

I think the AW2 will get new processors and improved and maybe additional sensors, but I can't see it getting GPS. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Apple likes the fact that you are tied to your iPhone for most AW uses, and getting the GPS in there is going to mean sacrifices elsewhere.

So other smart watch makers are now setting the style bar for Apple to beat? I don't think so. Apple is competing with world class watchmakers who introduce new designs every year. I like the way the Watch looks, and I think it has an enduring "classic" Apple look. But that doesn't move merchandise in the fashion industry. If Apple doesn't change the look of the watch, they're going to have a hard time selling the Gen 1 Watch alongside one that looks the same with only "processor" upgrades. And I firmly believe they want to introduce a lower priced watch to pull in more customers, even if it's only the Gen 1 Sport.

Everything Apple is doing suggests that they are moving the watch away from the iPhone as fast as possible. People are never going to replace their iPhones with an Watch as long as portable screens are necessary -- and they are still very necessary. But I think Apple would prefer to put an Watch on every wrist they can, not just the wrists that own an iPhone. In fact it's one more way to introduce a halo product into the Android community.

 

[BarracksSi]

Apple is competing with world class watchmakers who introduce new designs every year. I like the way the Watch looks, and I think it has an enduring "classic" Apple look. But that doesn't move merchandise in the fashion industry.

Yeah it does. I mentioned Rolex earlier; they sell more four-figures-and-up watches than anyone else on the planet. Their designs are recognizable because they haven't evolved much in eighty years, and -- more importantly, IMO -- they've cultivated an image of desirability and prestige which appeals to all sorts of social classes.

Louis Vuitton hasn't changed their basic tan-and-brown pattern and logo, and Tiffany has got a lock on their blue-teal color. Even Mercedes somehow manages to make all their vehicles unique while still looking like A Mercedes. Vera Bradley, for better or worse, is also immediately recognizable thanks to the color-blasted quilted cotton they use.

Almost all the other Apple hardware designs have settled into a basic style. Why does the Watch need to radically evolve every year?