Apple Watch 2 Wishlist

[lordofthereef]

I'd like two things that I thik are both managable:

1. Run tracking without a phone paired that also does autopause. Would ove for this to be Nike plus since I have already used that quite a bit but I am not choosy.

2. Couple GB of storage for music. Would be even greater to stream music over 3g/4g but that's probably less realistic.

As it stands I need to bing my phone on a run and if I need to do that I see no point in this device. Wife has one and I have tried it, but it doesn't enhance my workout, it rather just hinders it. I don't otherwise wear watches, so without a really robust sport model, no sale for me.

 

[NDM2015]

All you say is really good, but for me one little detail would make a huge difference, wich is to automaticaly have siri on when you receive a text on your watch.

Wouldn't need to push reply and then the mic to reply. Absurd.

 

[nicho]

All you say is really good, but for me one little detail would make a huge difference, wich is to automaticaly have siri on when you receive a text on your watch.

Wouldn't need to push reply and then the mic to reply. Absurd.

"Hey Siri, reply ..." - already present. Give it a go
[doublepost=1453733805][/doublepost]

I'd like two things that I thik are both managable:

1. Run tracking without a phone paired that also does autopause. Would ove for this to be Nike plus since I have already used that quite a bit but I am not choosy.

2. Couple GB of storage for music. Would be even greater to stream music over 3g/4g but that's probably less realistic.

As it stands I need to bing my phone on a run and if I need to do that I see no point in this device. Wife has one and I have tried it, but it doesn't enhance my workout, it rather just hinders it. I don't otherwise wear watches, so without a really robust sport model, no sale for me.

A couple of GB of storage for music I could see being possible. I currently have 4.6GB out of 6.1 free on my Apple Watch - what's it for? Even if Apple needed it clear for software updates the nature of getting music onto the watch means they could just delete it and copy back over again when done.

 

[WLS]

Latest rumor from Munster say there will be an S upgrade.
Details: http://www.cultofmac.com/410277/apple-watch-may-get-an-s-upgrade-in-march
Actually that is exactly what I want. A s2 processor no camera and a few other refinements.
We shall see.

 

[terminator-jq]

Latest rumor from Munster say there will be an S upgrade.
Details: http://www.cultofmac.com/410277/apple-watch-may-get-an-s-upgrade-in-march
Actually that is exactly what I want. A s2 processor no camera and a few other refinements.
We shall see.

I really hope this rumor is true. UI smoothness and battery life seem to be the main complaints people have about the current Apple Watch. Even though I would love a true next ten Apple Watch 2, an "S" version would still be fantastic and I'm sure it would help prevent the current owners from feeling too screwed over (especially those that bought the $10,000 version). I'm sure Apple could also release new bands that take advantage of the "mystery diagnostics port" to extend the battery life for Apple Watch 1 owners.

I guess we'll know for sure next month but I can't imagine Apple putting their smartwatch marketshare in jeopardy by only releasing new bands and colors. New bands will be great for existing owners but a new model is whats going to attract new owners and keep interest high.

 

[BarracksSi]

I guess we'll know for sure next month but I can't imagine Apple putting their smartwatch marketshare in jeopardy by only releasing new bands and colors. New bands will be great for existing owners but a new model is whats going to attract new owners and keep interest high.

Apple's share of the smartwatch is pretty healthy, I'd say.

I wonder how necessary it is for them to rapidly update the hardware, though. Seems like a lot of potential buyers (at least the ones posting in web forums) are saying they'll wait for AW2, and others don't want to be "forced to upgrade every year" (or so they believe).

I'll offer the opinion of Apple needing to assure a longer product cycle for the AW. Buyers who are on the fence about such a substantial purchase* are afraid of the hardware or software being outmoded fairly soon. If, instead, they feel that if they buy now, their AW will remain well-supported for several years (as is the case with iPods, AppleTVs, and some other trinkets), maybe they'll be more confident in a purchase today.


*By "substantial purchase", even the Sport model is a bundle of cash when most watch wearers aren't used to paying more than $100-200 for a watch. Never forget that you'll see more Timexes, Casios, and Fossils on people's wrists than Rolexes, TAGs, and Omegas.

 

[WLS]

I'd have to say that an "S" upgrade is in Apples best interests People are used to the concept and won't complain as much as a complete redesign. I'd only be interested only in the processor and battery upgrade that could come in March. A major redesign likely will have a camera and I refuse to go with that. I was mad that they put a camera in the iPads.
For me the competition is Samsung and their Classic gear 2 is a better choice of size at 40mm than the Apple watch at 38mm (too small) or 42mm ( too big). If I have to wait till fall for a new Apple watch I'm that much more likely to get the Samsung if they do a refresh before then.

 

[matrix07]

All you say is really good, but for me one little detail would make a huge difference, wich is to automaticaly have siri on when you receive a text on your watch.

Wouldn't need to push reply and then the mic to reply. Absurd.

+1 for this. A true handsfree watch would be a killer Watch. Getting a call? Simply says "accept" and when you're done, "Ends it". Likewise for message, "Reply" and "Send" without touching a button will make for a very smooth operation.

 

[nicho]

+1 for this. A true handsfree watch would be a killer Watch. Getting a call? Simply says "accept" and when you're done, "Ends it". Likewise for message, "Reply" and "Send" without touching a button will make for a very smooth operation.

except that there's so many ways a user could say to end the call and each of them would easily crop up in normal conversation. plus the other person would hear you telling the watch to hang up, could you not just ask other person to hang up on you? it's probably less rude.

@NDM2015 and you probably aren't aware, when the text shows up you can just say "hey Siri, reply..." and dictate your message. and there's no need to confirm, by voice or button - it'll send automatically after a period.

 

[matrix07]

except that there's so many ways a user could say to end the call and each of them would easily crop up in normal conversation. plus the other person would hear you telling the watch to hang up, could you not just ask other person to hang up on you? it's probably less rude.

@NDM2015 and you probably aren't aware, when the text shows up you can just say "hey Siri, reply..." and dictate your message. and there's no need to confirm, by voice or button - it'll send automatically after a period.

I know that but what I want is consistent approach when there is communication coming in. Right now you can use "hey Siri" with text but not a phone call. And I want it to be in true hand free fashion, for situation like when you're cooking or your other hand is dirty etc. This is required and the current half baked approach simply won't do.
And to say "hey Siri accepts a call" and "hey Siri finishes the call" is just too cumbersome. I'll leave that to smart people at Apple to resolve, to make it feel very natural to users.

 

[nicho]

I know that but what I want is consistent approach when there is communication coming in. Right now you can use "hey Siri" with text but not a phone call. And I want it to be in true hand free fashion, for situation like when you're cooking or your other hand is dirty etc. This is required and the current half baked approach simply won't do.

why did you deliberately say something completely incorrect then? - -

I agree Siri should be able to answer a call, though. Right now most people's workaround is using the nose.

 

[matrix07]

why did you deliberately say something completely incorrect then? - -

Because I don't see it as Siri function but a voice control one, like global voice control that know what app you're looking at and will know what your order means. Hence why I said saying "hey Siri accept a call" is too cumbersome and unnatural.
But to think a bit further, saying that and then lower the wrist to end the call might do, even though it's not very Star Trek like.

I agree Siri should be able to answer a call, though. Right now most people's workaround is using the nose.

Yeah... I guess everyone can agree this will be very helpful.

 

[BarracksSi]

I know that but what I want is consistent approach when there is communication coming in.

…

I'll leave that to smart people at Apple to resolve, to make it feel very natural to users.

These two goals don't align. "Consistent" would need to be scripted, which is anything but "natural."

Siri is pretty good at inferring commands, at least after the "Hey Siri" trigger. It's much more natural than the old MacOS Speakable commands, too, which were all pretty heavily scripted.

 

[matrix07]

These two goals don't align. "Consistent" would need to be scripted, which is anything but "natural."

Siri is pretty good at inferring commands, at least after the "Hey Siri" trigger. It's much more natural than the old MacOS Speakable commands, too, which were all pretty heavily scripted.

I agree that what we have now is pretty good but my "consistent" was meant for the source... all the communications. Call, Text and Notifications. You should be able to interact with these hand free, and without "Hey Siri"
Now that SIRI knows your voice, and know what app, and even what content of the app, you're looking at you shouldn't need a trigger word no more (for communications). Yeah it would be scripted but it could still be natural. Like saying "Accept" or "OK" to accept the call. Or "Reject" or "No" or "Not now" to refuse to receive the call.
And you should also be able to say "Retweet it" to twitter notification, "Like it" to Facebook notification, "Save" to saving activities, or simply say "OK" to dismiss any notifications. etc.
What you said is these are not natural but what I meant is these are more or less the same words as those buttons present on notifications so it will be natural to users (to learn and command).

 

[nicho]

I agree that what we have now is pretty good but my "consistent" was meant for the source... all the communications. Call, Text and Notifications. You should be able to interact with these hand free, and without "Hey Siri"
Now that SIRI knows your voice, and know what app, and even what content of the app, you're looking at you shouldn't need a trigger word no more (for communications). Yeah it would be scripted but it could still be natural. Like saying "Accept" or "OK" to accept the call. Or "Reject" or "No" or "Not now" to refuse to receive the call.
And you should also be able to say "Retweet it" to twitter notification, "Like it" to Facebook notification, "Save" to saving activities, or simply say "OK" to dismiss any notifications. etc.
What you said is these are not natural but what I meant is these are more or less the same words as those buttons present on notifications so it will be natural to users (to learn and command).

What's the problem with hey Siri first?

Without hey Siri it would be listening to you all the time. It just won't happen, with any device, ever. Imagine you're having dinner and your mum asks how's the soup, and you say I like it. But while she's asking a facebook notification comes through from a friend who's dog has died and you said like it at the wrong time and they never speak to you again.

And more seriously ... The privacy issues involved with listening all the time?

 

[matrix07]

Imagine you're having dinner and your mum asks how's the soup, and you say I like it. But while she's asking a facebook notification comes through from a friend who's dog has died and you said like it at the wrong time and they never speak to you again.

You need to raise a wrist to look at Facebook notification for voice to initiate command. It's only for hand free operation. This way it will not listen to you all the time.
It could be programmed for a certain level of raising (a wrist) so if you just rest your hand but the screen is lit up accidentally it will not do.

 

[nicho]

You need to raise a wrist to look at Facebook notification for voice to initiate command. It's only for hand free operation. This way it will not listen to you all the time.
It could be programmed for a certain level of raising (a wrist) so if you just rest your hand but the screen is lit up accidentally it will not do.

Hang on, what if I'm carrying shopping? So I can't use the hands free then?

Talk about consistency

 

[matrix07]

Hang on, what if I'm carrying shopping? So I can't use the hands free then?

Talk about consistency

Carry it with your other arm or drop it for a few seconds. If you use your nose in emergency situation you had raised your arm high enough already.

I agree Siri should be able to answer a call, though. Right now most people's workaround is using the nose.

 

[nicho]

Carry it with your other arm or drop it for a few seconds. If you use your nose in emergency situation you had raised your arm high enough already.

If I can raise my arm enough to put stuff into the other hand, I can just... Use that hand.

 

[matrix07]

If I can raise my arm enough to put stuff into the other hand, I can just... Use that hand.

I don't understand. Use what hand? You don't raise your arm to put stuffs into other hands. You hands stuffs to other hand and raise your arm to do voice command. That's the way it should be.
Or simply drop stuffs in your watch hand for a second...

 

[nicho]

I don't understand. Use what hand? You don't raise your arm to put stuffs into other hands. You hands stuffs to other hand and raise your arm to do voice command. That's the way it should be.

i wouldn't need to raise my arm to put stuff into my other hand. you're right. do i need to draw you a diagram to explain most people's hands are at the same level as each other when carrying bags? how would it be easier to put everything in one hand, raise a hand and speak, if i'm carrying a weekly shop? i could just shuffle my arms across my body and use a finger just as easily.

or turn my wrist and shout, but you won't allow that for some reason. consistency.

 

[matrix07]

i wouldn't need to raise my arm to put stuff into my other hand. you're right. do i need to draw you a diagram to explain most people's hands are at the same level as each other when carrying bags? how would it be easier to put everything in one hand, raise a hand and speak, if i'm carrying a weekly shop? i could just shuffle my arms across my body and use a finger just as easily.

And how can you receive a call that way? You need to raise your arm to talk anyway.

 

[nicho]

And how can you receive a call that way? You need to raise your arm to talk anyway.

i can shout.

or reject it. rejection is an option.

 

[BarracksSi]

or reject it. rejection is an option.

This is what I keep telling myself when the girls keep chasing me.

There's always the chance to call back later anyway. I hope I never have to carry groceries in both arms for an hour.

 

[iZac]

Fully independent device with an eSIM.

I have a silly little fantasy where an Apple watch can do all the voice communications I needed from an iPhone leaving me to either carry around an iPad mini in a man-bag or nothing else at all.