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 With GPS for Improved Navigation, Fitness Tracking Coming This Fall
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Google for "Camera Watch" and you'll find some competitors who have it.
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.
https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/KM1084805
UMTS is the lowest they can get away with.
Glassed Silver:mac
I think they're still different prouducts, at the end of the day. You'd still want your phone for web browsing, most forms of media consumption, etc. I don't feel like smart watch technology is anywhere close enough to permanently replace a phone with a watch.
Although I would somewhat agree with you, you cannot speak for what Jobs would have contributed today regarding the Apple Watch or other products for that matter. And you do know the Apple Watch was one of Jobs last projects he contributed to in 2010/2011?
Not everyone 'Hates' products that have been under Cook's term. If your referring to The Apple Watch, some disapprove, but I definitely do not consider this a hated product by many.
Seems a bit glib to say products we learn to love to hate.
Last edited:
GPS isn't going to get me to upgrade. Better performance is what I'm after. The watch OS 3 should help with that, but it needs more RAM to keep things going in the background, more storage space for music and photos, and better graphics performance so it's not so laggy when scrolling or playing a simple game like Pong that kills time. LTE would be neat, but all it really needs is 3G, as that's about as fast as it can connect to the iPhone anyway, and 3G chips in tiny packages today should be much more power efficient.
Something that people don't think about is if the Apple Watch is running on LTE, then the apps are no longer loading off the iPhone and have to be completely stored on the Watch. That means much better performance and storage is needed, which can limit battery life, especially when factoring in LTE, and even more so with a GPS. I don't think the hardware is mature enough to handle that, but maybe in another 18 months if they stick to that cycle. I think that's a good cycle for the Watch, and makes every-other-year upgrades at 3 years more sustainable for users. I'm willing to upgrade my Watch every 3 years, especially if they offer a band-less version for like $50 cheaper that works with all my existing bands.
One thing I know for sure is that Apple must be working on it. That $129 up-charge for cellular is likely high on their priority list for AW3. I don't think the Watch needs to be like the iPhone, at least not for a long time and maybe not until they can make big display bands that wrap around your wrist that are comfortable and stylish and work well. But having cellular on-board would still be welcome for loading the little bits of data that Apple Watch apps are good at displaying. I'm hoping that a data plan for something like that would be a simple $5/mo charge, as it wouldn't use much data. Anything over $10/mo would be a fail IMO. And I think 3G would be a good fit. I think Verizon said they weren't going to keep supporting their 3G network, but I think I read somewhere that they decided to keep it going for the IoT (Internet of Things) initiative going on right now. Maybe someone here on the forums told me that, as I've been sleep deprived lately with a new baby. IDK.
Something that people don't think about is if the Apple Watch is running on LTE, then the apps are no longer loading off the iPhone and have to be completely stored on the Watch. That means much better performance and storage is needed, which can limit battery life, especially when factoring in LTE, and even more so with a GPS. I don't think the hardware is mature enough to handle that, but maybe in another 18 months if they stick to that cycle. I think that's a good cycle for the Watch, and makes every-other-year upgrades at 3 years more sustainable for users. I'm willing to upgrade my Watch every 3 years, especially if they offer a band-less version for like $50 cheaper that works with all my existing bands.
One thing I know for sure is that Apple must be working on it. That $129 up-charge for cellular is likely high on their priority list for AW3. I don't think the Watch needs to be like the iPhone, at least not for a long time and maybe not until they can make big display bands that wrap around your wrist that are comfortable and stylish and work well. But having cellular on-board would still be welcome for loading the little bits of data that Apple Watch apps are good at displaying. I'm hoping that a data plan for something like that would be a simple $5/mo charge, as it wouldn't use much data. Anything over $10/mo would be a fail IMO. And I think 3G would be a good fit. I think Verizon said they weren't going to keep supporting their 3G network, but I think I read somewhere that they decided to keep it going for the IoT (Internet of Things) initiative going on right now. Maybe someone here on the forums told me that, as I've been sleep deprived lately with a new baby. IDK.
The GPS function will be used as a data mining tool. It will be sold as a convenient feature. However, if they can make the cellular service device agnostic then it can be a very compelling sell to take/make calls on your iWatch using a blue tooth earpiece.
The sapphire screen would be nice to prevent or virtually eliminate scratches. It makes sense in a sport model, to me anyway. I'm much more prone to band my watch into things during physical activity. I can see a price bump over gorilla glass but I have no real desire or need for stainless housing.
[doublepost=1471584709][/doublepost]
While probably true, this wouldn't make it a better choice for someone who would like to, for example, swim with it. Apple doesn't recommend swimming with their Watch. And so I'm lead to believe water damage would still void a warranty. If a person wants a watch for these conditions right now they're either taking s huge risk or simply not getting s watch.
[doublepost=1471584872][/doublepost]
I think the point is that subscription music providers allow for locally stored files (on the smartphone). I would think it could be something as simple as an in app setting to transfer a playlist to the watch itself. I just don't think that functionality is there.
[doublepost=1471585390][/doublepost]
I can only speak for myself, but it just becomes very cumbersome on longer runs. I typically run for st least an hour (some real runners consider that nothing lol) and even in my belt it just gets annoying and hot, not to mention covered in sweat.
Your second point about safety is exactly why people are saying a cellular connection would be great. I won't run without my phone specifically because of this fact. If my watch can make an emergency call independently though, it has now eliminated my need to run with a phone on me.
[doublepost=1471585626][/doublepost]
The device could simply log gps coordinstes during movement and then provide a visual overlay of that data on a map for the user to look at. Essentially a coordinate log that tracks live movement. This is basically how all god watches currently work.
Last edited:
My personal experience with the Sport Model was not the greatest. The Ion-X Glass scratched relatively easy and the 7000 series aluminum also scratched, which aluminum cannot have scratches removed once damaged.
I shortly upgraded to the Stainless model and the sapphire display was worth the price tag alone, even though the trade off was the Ion-X had a better display in sunlight without the added layer of sapphire.
The 316 L stainless if scratched, being minor, can be buffed out. But the stainless looks really sharp and has a nice weight to it. 316 L is also a very soft metal as well, which may or may not be to your benefit being how you treat your Watch.
You may not have a desire for the stainless housing, but from personal experience and those I know who do have the stainless model, would never down grade to the Sport. The updated cosmetic features are worth the price tag in my opinion. The Stainless casing is more premium, but with a price tag.
I'm interested in seeing what Gen 2 has to offer. Maybe additional casing options was a previous rumor.
I honestly wouldn't be terribly saddened by the casing getting scratched. It's just s casing. Knicks and gouges in the screen (or I should say above it) are distracting from getting me the visual information st s glance that I would be buying the watch for in the first place.
I'll probably only get stainless if it's the only way to get sapphire again. Meaning I will probably get stainless.
That's another reason why feature points are so important to me. Dropping $500 on a smart watch in not completely happy with isn't my idea of s good time lol.
Does cellular connectivity mean I have to pay for just another data plan? Or can I somehow use the existing data plan from my phone?
Most similar products are currently an additional $5 connection charge. So yeah, there's an added fee but it's not quite as hefty as other dedicated devices. It's also presumably using much less data.
The new Polar M600 is an Android wear watch with optical hr, GPS and special Apps from Polar for running etc. without a phone.
It is IPX8, 10m water resistant and officially suitable for swimming (polar advertises this).
Christian
The battery life is certainly not going to jump from 18 Hours to 48. Won't happen at least in Gen 2. Honestly, if you want 48 hours of battery life, then consider Pebble. But being this also a health Watch with A heart rate sensor, Taptic Engine, 'Hey Siri', and a notification device, it does fairly well on 18 hours of battery life.
The Apple Watch is fat? Compared to what? Have you seen a Tag Heurer, Omega or lnvicta? Those watches are twice the size and weight of the Apple Watch. The Apple Watch is really not that big. 42 MM is a great size. Not to big or to small.
GPS will be welcomed,
I'm with you, I would like the GPS for when I'm cycling, I want to be able to leave the phone at home and just use a smart watch.
I'll be switching eco-systems (again) if the Surface phone does not meet expectations (if it's released at all this year) and surprisingly smart watches will be a crucial factor for me with GPS being a must have.
I'm with you, I would like the GPS for when I'm cycling, I want to be able to leave the phone at home and just use a smart watch.
I'll be switching eco-systems (again) if the Surface phone does not meet expectations (if it's released at all this year) and surprisingly smart watches will be a crucial factor for me with GPS being a must have.
Please Don't Put A Camera In The Apple Watch
Dear Apple,
IT HAS COME to my attention that you might possibly maybe potentially be mulling adding a video camera to the next Apple Watch. Ha ha, good prank! (I hope.) But just in case you’re seriously considering this, please allow me the opportunity to convince you to do otherwise.
Let’s establish, first of all, that the idea of a FaceTime-enabled Apple Watch 2 would seem unthinkable if it weren’t for the person who mentioned it: Mark Gurman, the Oracle of Cupertino, an Apple rumormonger so consistently correct that it would be more accurate to say he mongers in truths, or at least strong likelihoods. On Thursday, Gurman wrote:
This means we must allow for at least the possibility you will pair the Watch’s digital crown with a camera lens tiara. And I get it; after seeing iPad sales deteriorate without headline-grabbing new features, there’s understandable pressure to give the Watch sequel a significant spec bump.
Just don’t let it be this one.
Yes, there are a few reasons you might want to strap a lens onto your wristputer. I get it. Being able to FaceTime from your wrist saves you the trouble of reaching for your phone. And again, it could be a solid marketing talking point. But the list, I think, ends there. Meanwhile, there many, manyreasons to reject this idea, and we’ll start with the one that might most resonate with you the most: It’s antithetical to why you made the Watch in the first place.
The whole concept of the Watch, as vocalized repeatedly both here and on stage when you announced it, was that it saves you time. Specifically, time you’d otherwise spend staring at your iPhone.
Despite the Watch’s shruggable reception, it has so far delivered on that promise. Its notifications give you just enough information that you can glance at your wrist instead of digging around in your pocket or purse. It keeps keeps a certain kind of digital obsessive from putting his or her phone on the dinner table, which helps ensure he or she is invited back to dinner. That part, at least, works.
Now let’s think about how a FaceTime call fits into that calculus. Surprise! It doesn’t. A FaceTime call would not be one of the “glanceable moments” the Apple Watch enables. It would be a squintable horror, a tiny eternity spent yapping at a stamp-sized acquaintance on your wrist.
Oh, and about that wrist, which is where the Apple Watch lives, because it is a watch. Where do you position it during a FaceTime chat? Normal rib-height gives your video pal a terrifying view of your chin(s) and nostrils, but raising your hand to face-level for conversational duration would be both uncomfortable and make you look insane. At least you’d be able to hear what your FaceTime friend is saying better, but then again, so will everyone else.
That’s the other thing; it’s safe to assume that in the comfort of your own home your iPhone is readily accessible. Or that you’d at least go through the trouble of digging it out from under your Cheetos. Apple Watch calls would, like all other Apple Watch functions, be for when you’re on the go, on the sidewalk or in the elevator or at the coffee shop, surrounded by souls who didn’t ask to hear either side of your weekly check-in with Nana.
I honestly can’t fathom what you’re thinking, if you are really thinking it, other than maybe Dick Tracy made watch calls all the time so it must be okay? But even then, Dick Tracy was a detective; his wrist calls were matters of life and death, an allowable exception to any manner of rudeness. Also, he was a cartoon. Also, if his creators had been able to conceptualize anything like a smartphone, he definitely would have made those calls from a smartphone.
Maybe your reasoning is that people, by now, understand basic tech etiquette enough that FaceTime Watch chats will take place only during discreet, non-invasive moments. To which I say you have clearly not been to a Super Target lately! Or a city sidewalk or subway or anywhere, really, that more than five or six strangers congregate. Instead of Dick Tracy Cool, FaceTime Watch chats will give us the next generation of Bluetooth Headset Guy. He’ll be just as loud and obnoxious, except this time he’s not looking where he’s going because he’s shouting into his forearm. We’ll also—can’t stress this enough—be able to hear both ends of the conversation this time, unless he also has a Bluetooth headset on, which puts us in a recursive loop of technological rudeness.
It gets worse, though. Surely you know Samsung already put a camera in a watch, and you know this made said watch very good at taking “creepshots,” photographs of unwitting people, usually taken at intimate angles. Google Glass, which put a camera in a place where people may not know they’re being filmed or photographed, rightly suffered the same stigma. Does this sound like a camera you may or may not be undertaking? If so, please reconsider!
Even if you don’t care about the societal implications—which would, again, turn our city streets into 21st century Hieronymous Bosch hellscapes—have a thought for the technical challenges this poses. Or at least to the only technical challenge that your customers care about: battery life. The Watch comes dangerously close to punking out by dinner time as it is; how long do you think it’ll make it if it has to push all those video pixels? In some ways I guess that could also be the one saving grace; repeat FaceWatch offenders would at least run out of juice pretty early into the call.
The other good news, of course, is that you may end up not putting a camera in the Watch at all. Or at least, not yet. Even Gurman says so. I hope that’s the case, that this is just an experiment that gets left in the R&D bunker. There are plenty of ways to improve a smartwatch that don’t make it a nuisance for those who don’t have one—or those who do.
Sincerely,
Brian Barrett
Dear Apple,
IT HAS COME to my attention that you might possibly maybe potentially be mulling adding a video camera to the next Apple Watch. Ha ha, good prank! (I hope.) But just in case you’re seriously considering this, please allow me the opportunity to convince you to do otherwise.
Let’s establish, first of all, that the idea of a FaceTime-enabled Apple Watch 2 would seem unthinkable if it weren’t for the person who mentioned it: Mark Gurman, the Oracle of Cupertino, an Apple rumormonger so consistently correct that it would be more accurate to say he mongers in truths, or at least strong likelihoods. On Thursday, Gurman wrote:
“Apple’s current considerations call for a video camera to be integrated into the top bezel of the Apple Watch 2, enabling users to make and receive FaceTime calls on the move via their wrists.”
This means we must allow for at least the possibility you will pair the Watch’s digital crown with a camera lens tiara. And I get it; after seeing iPad sales deteriorate without headline-grabbing new features, there’s understandable pressure to give the Watch sequel a significant spec bump.
Just don’t let it be this one.
Yes, there are a few reasons you might want to strap a lens onto your wristputer. I get it. Being able to FaceTime from your wrist saves you the trouble of reaching for your phone. And again, it could be a solid marketing talking point. But the list, I think, ends there. Meanwhile, there many, manyreasons to reject this idea, and we’ll start with the one that might most resonate with you the most: It’s antithetical to why you made the Watch in the first place.
The whole concept of the Watch, as vocalized repeatedly both here and on stage when you announced it, was that it saves you time. Specifically, time you’d otherwise spend staring at your iPhone.
Despite the Watch’s shruggable reception, it has so far delivered on that promise. Its notifications give you just enough information that you can glance at your wrist instead of digging around in your pocket or purse. It keeps keeps a certain kind of digital obsessive from putting his or her phone on the dinner table, which helps ensure he or she is invited back to dinner. That part, at least, works.
Now let’s think about how a FaceTime call fits into that calculus. Surprise! It doesn’t. A FaceTime call would not be one of the “glanceable moments” the Apple Watch enables. It would be a squintable horror, a tiny eternity spent yapping at a stamp-sized acquaintance on your wrist.
Oh, and about that wrist, which is where the Apple Watch lives, because it is a watch. Where do you position it during a FaceTime chat? Normal rib-height gives your video pal a terrifying view of your chin(s) and nostrils, but raising your hand to face-level for conversational duration would be both uncomfortable and make you look insane. At least you’d be able to hear what your FaceTime friend is saying better, but then again, so will everyone else.
That’s the other thing; it’s safe to assume that in the comfort of your own home your iPhone is readily accessible. Or that you’d at least go through the trouble of digging it out from under your Cheetos. Apple Watch calls would, like all other Apple Watch functions, be for when you’re on the go, on the sidewalk or in the elevator or at the coffee shop, surrounded by souls who didn’t ask to hear either side of your weekly check-in with Nana.
I honestly can’t fathom what you’re thinking, if you are really thinking it, other than maybe Dick Tracy made watch calls all the time so it must be okay? But even then, Dick Tracy was a detective; his wrist calls were matters of life and death, an allowable exception to any manner of rudeness. Also, he was a cartoon. Also, if his creators had been able to conceptualize anything like a smartphone, he definitely would have made those calls from a smartphone.
Maybe your reasoning is that people, by now, understand basic tech etiquette enough that FaceTime Watch chats will take place only during discreet, non-invasive moments. To which I say you have clearly not been to a Super Target lately! Or a city sidewalk or subway or anywhere, really, that more than five or six strangers congregate. Instead of Dick Tracy Cool, FaceTime Watch chats will give us the next generation of Bluetooth Headset Guy. He’ll be just as loud and obnoxious, except this time he’s not looking where he’s going because he’s shouting into his forearm. We’ll also—can’t stress this enough—be able to hear both ends of the conversation this time, unless he also has a Bluetooth headset on, which puts us in a recursive loop of technological rudeness.
It gets worse, though. Surely you know Samsung already put a camera in a watch, and you know this made said watch very good at taking “creepshots,” photographs of unwitting people, usually taken at intimate angles. Google Glass, which put a camera in a place where people may not know they’re being filmed or photographed, rightly suffered the same stigma. Does this sound like a camera you may or may not be undertaking? If so, please reconsider!
Even if you don’t care about the societal implications—which would, again, turn our city streets into 21st century Hieronymous Bosch hellscapes—have a thought for the technical challenges this poses. Or at least to the only technical challenge that your customers care about: battery life. The Watch comes dangerously close to punking out by dinner time as it is; how long do you think it’ll make it if it has to push all those video pixels? In some ways I guess that could also be the one saving grace; repeat FaceWatch offenders would at least run out of juice pretty early into the call.
The other good news, of course, is that you may end up not putting a camera in the Watch at all. Or at least, not yet. Even Gurman says so. I hope that’s the case, that this is just an experiment that gets left in the R&D bunker. There are plenty of ways to improve a smartwatch that don’t make it a nuisance for those who don’t have one—or those who do.
Sincerely,
Brian Barrett