Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Watch 2 With GPS for Improved Navigation, Fitness Tracking Coming This Fall

I can't imagine leaving my phone behind so the only things I really care about are better battery life, water immunity, and more faster.
 
Honestly the main thing is better water proofing and for the love of all that is good better speakers. At times it feels like im talking to mickey mouse with how low the volume is.
 
JohnApples said:
I suppose I could *maybe* see why someone would want an outward-facing camera on their watch, but honestly I think the negatives far outweigh any positives it would bring.

First of all, there's no room. But even if we ignore that for a moment- any camera that COULD fit into the watch would just be downright terrible quality. This would negate "Capturing a beautiful moment" because it would just not look good once you captured it. You'd be taking a picture for the sake of taking a picture- not to preserve a memory.

Second, a wrist is a horrible place to house a camera. Not only would you be terribly shaky (especially due to poor/lack of digital image stabilization) but you'd have to peer *down* at your wrist to see what you're taking a picture of. A viewfinder, at least 90% of the time, should be opposite of the lens, not perpendicular to it. It's unnatural trying to take a picture this way.

Lastly, it's rather pointless considering how the norm is to always have your phone on you. Wasn't a phone camera's purpose to be able to take a picture when you don't have a "real camera" on you? Why do we need to further that with the watch for when you don't have your phone on you? Will we need *another* camera device down the line for when you don't have your watch OR phone on you? That rabbit hole could go on forever with that logic.

No, there won't be a camera on the Apple Watch any time soon. There's just no way to make a good user experience out of it. I can't see them wasting time/resources/etc. on such a gimmicky feature (well....) that has such a limited use case scenario, and when it's actually used in that scenario, it just won't do well. Like I said, putting a camera in the watch at the moment would be them doing it just to do it, and we all know that's not how Apple operates.
Click to expand...

1) Room: We have no idea what miniaturization Apple has planned for the internal components of the watch. Look at the difference between the iPad 1 and 2. The camera doesn't have to be that great to take a selfie to remember the moment.

2) Image stabilization: is software controlled. It takes no extra room. Also it's a FaceTime camera -- so you don't have to peer down at your wrist, you hold it up like you would the phone and take the picture. It's for selfies. By the way, tens of millions of Americans took pictures peering down at the viewfinder with the Brownie camera just as you describe and it was possibly the most popular consumer camera in history.

3) Norm: Did you READ the article? Apple is rumored to be planning to a cellular radio to make the watch independent from the iPhone. So, no phone, no camera. Therefore, they need to add it to the watch.

4) Of course I completely disagree with your summation. Add to that, what practical purpose did Apple serve when they added "burst" mode to the FaceTime camera on the iPhone? You might want to re-think how Apple operates.
 
Mac 128 said:
1) Room: We have no idea what miniaturization Apple has planned for the internal components of the watch. Look at the difference between the iPad 1 and 2. The camera doesn't have to be that great to take a selfie to remember the moment.

2) Image stabilization: is software controlled. It takes no extra room. Also it's a FaceTime camera -- so you don't have to peer down at your wrist, you hold it up like you would the phone and take the picture. It's for selfies. By the way, tens of millions of Americans took pictures peering down at the viewfinder with the Brownie camera just as you describe and it was possibly the most popular consumer camera in history.

3) Norm: Did you READ the article? Apple is rumored to be planning to a cellular radio to make the watch independent from the iPhone. So, no phone, no camera. Therefore, they need to add it to the watch.

4) Of course I completely disagree with your summation. Add to that, what practical purpose did Apple serve when they added "burst" mode to the FaceTime camera on the iPhone? You might want to re-think how Apple operates.
Click to expand...

Well for one, I was referring to an outward-facing camera as I stated. A selfie camera, while I still think is silly, is much more feasible.

Image stabilization is software controlled yes, but only to a certain degree. It does take processing power to do, and we don't know how well the Watch will be able to handle it.

Adding cellular capabilities doesn't mean they *need* to add a camera. When you choose to go without your phone, you're choosing to give up certain capabilities- like a full keyboard, internet browsing, or watching videos. By that logic, all those things are also required in the new watch, right? Should every feature in the iPhone be somehow put into the watch just 'cause you can use it without the phone? A camera is not essential to function as a cellular device, so that's why I don't see it being added. And if it IS essential to an individual, they wouldn't be relying on a watch camera in the first place.

Comparing a potential watch camera to the Brownie is accurate though- I bet the quality will be similar :D I kid, I kid. Seriously though, that thing is over a century old, and was essentially the first of it's kind. There's a reason we don't use viewfinders like that anymore. That's like saying the next iPhone should be flip-style with a physical numeric keypad just because millions of Americans bought flip phones back before anything better existed.

Again, I was referring to an outward-facing camera. You may want to re-read. Also, I wasn't attacking the idea, just stating why I don't think it's feasible or necessary yet. No need to get defensive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Recognition and Night Spring
I don't own an ⌚️ yet, but from all I'm reading, I think the first one is the one I will try to get soon as possible. It will be less money and it's looking like nothing in the 2 is enough to make me want one.
 
newdeal said:
I wish they would make the sport stainless steel (at the same price of the current sport)
Click to expand...

What do you mean? I thought the only difference between Sport and stainless steel was the material. Don't you mean to just say you wish they'd drop the price of SS to the level of the Sport?

MasterRyu2011 said:
I'm sorry, but why would anybody leave their phone at home in this day and age? What if you needed to make an emergency call or look up some information?
Click to expand...

I just want to be able to go for a walk in the park or take quick trip to the grocery store without my phone. Plenty of people around to call 911 if I get in an emergency, and anything else can wait until I get home.

rturner2 said:
have to manually put your music on the device like it's 2008?
Click to expand...

It syncs automatically -- there's a setting for it on the Watch app on the iPhone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 341328
rturner2 said:
Doesn't work with subscription music like Apple Music... I don't think.
Click to expand...

Ah. I don't use subscription music, just my own MP3 files.

Wait if you are using a music subscription service, how would you manually copy music to the watch?
 
jenni122701 said:
I don't own an ⌚️ yet, but from all I'm reading, I think the first one is the one I will try to get soon as possible. It will be less money and it's looking like nothing in the 2 is enough to make me want one.
Click to expand...

Better battery + GPS is not appealing?
 
sniffies said:
One of the very few Apple products that I couldn't care less about. But I do care about this post though.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. We need new MacBookPros, iMac's and a iPhone that is 3 years ahead of a Galaxy Note 7, not 3 years behind it, and all Tim Cook thinks about is this stupid watch with its marginally functional apps. Apple is looking more and more like Blackberry 2004. That company never thought the could get knocked off their purch ether.
 
SMIDG3T said:
I'm glad they aren't adding cellular independence. That's just another data plan for pay for. GPS though is a must and it looks like we'll get it.
Click to expand...

Really? I wouldn't have any interest, nor do I personally see any value in this product without cellular independence.

It's like a limited iPhone, that doesn't fully work without the iPhone, that you have to carry around with you, making the device redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koigirl and VMMan
I will be curious to see a thinner model. I have a 42" sport and like the thickness. That said, I don't know what thinner would feel like.

I don't know what feature would have to be added for me to upgrade. I don't know how my use case would benefit from GPS, I have no issue with battery or formfactor. I wouldn't mind more speed but I guess Im just content for now.

I guess I will have to wait go see if Im wowwed.
 
smacrumon said:
Camera is essential!
Not buying until has camera and can operate independent of my phone.
For capturing all sorts of photos on the go when you're without your phone.

photo.png
Click to expand...

When are you truly "out on the go" without your phone?
 
QCassidy352 said:
Then I'll wait for version 3. GPS is necessary but not sufficient for me to buy. If I can't leave my phone behind then I don't see the point.
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm the total opposite. I want to be able use my watch without having to have my phone with me. I knew that Apple was going to slowly be adding features like GPS that should have been in there in the first place. So I'm suspecting Apple will have it be a truly independent device by the 4th or 5th generation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koigirl
mtcowdog said:
Adding GPS is needed, and late to the game. Improving processing speed and interface is fundamental. Better water proofing would be nice. I like the integration with my iPhone. That's a benefit to me. So, lack of LTE isn't an issue at this point. But I also don't think these changes are going to launch the Apple Watch to greater success. The benefit-cost for a lot of people still won't be there. For a geek like me, it's a great watch with benefits. For others, it's not there yet. People often ask me if I recommend the AW after seeing mine: I always say, "not yet." That will continue if these rumors are true. But I will still want an AW2.
Click to expand...

How is it "late to the game" WTH.
The small watch is 1/3 the size of big Garmin watches with GPS.
That explains why there was no GPS on that watch.

Could argue that no other smart watch is the Apple Watch size with the same capacity and THEY are late to the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHNXX
Well, we might have to wait till the Apple Watch 3 after all for the product to be a "must have." For now, I don't think it will be a significant source of revenue.
 
I don't think they will make it too independent of the iPhone because at that point, you're just introducing a smaller smartphone for people to carry, I mean if the watch can make calls, take photos, give directions, send/receive messages etc. then why would one buy a phone? I think Apple will ultimately design it to fit more fluid with the iphone/ipad etc. but to use the full power of the watch you will still need a phone. So while these changes seem like they are small incremental ones, I think they are good, and I'll probably pick one up finally since they are adding GPS and better water proofing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back