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

Maybe with the third generation, there will be features that inspire me to spend my hard earned money on a watch that requires me to charge it every night. Until then I will continue to use the watch that I have and does not require charging or plugging in, or synchronization. Until i see those must have and can't live without features.
After all, saving money is not a crime.
[doublepost=1471561328][/doublepost]
Shade12 said:
me too wont buy till they make it charge by movement or light like my citizen watch
Click to expand...
I had a Seiko kenetic that charged with movement. After 8 years, it stopped moving. I like your solar charging idea. When that is introduced, i see the Apple Watch as something more seriously worth considering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shade12 and Stella
GPS and waterproof are enough. Covers the two things I'd like most:

1. Distance tracking without a phone.
2. Fitness tracking while in the water.
 
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.
 
BaggsB said:
I never cared about the LTE rumor on the AW2. Like others all I wanted was GPS. I run with the Garmin Vivosmart HR+, and although I like it the AW has always interested me. Would like to run without my phone! I would not want to pay for another plan just for the AW.
Click to expand...

Why do so many people not want to run with their phone? I can appreciate that if you could leave it at home that would be nice but it's never been a deal breaker for me.

I like to have my phone as an insurance policy in case I get injured and need to call home or even make an emergency call. (Sure this could be solved by having cellular capabilities in the watch but I don't want to pay for a second plan).

I have a 6+ and its easy to stow away and doesn't add significant weight for running.
 
Ok, so with these features it's worth $200 at MOST! Sport should start at 150.

There are some great competitors coming out soon, so if Apple doesn't want to have it's market share wiped out like Android wiped them off with cell phones, they should reconsider the price.

Also, if I were Tim i would consider making it compatible with Android, as there are A LOT more android out there than iphones. Plus if this next Iphone is a dud like all the rumors are pointing to, might as well try and retain some customers ;)
 
MR-LIZARD said:
Why do so many people not want to run with their phone? I can appreciate that if you could leave it at home that would be nice but it's never been a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...
I don't even like running with my house key on me (usually hide it by the house), much less my phone. It's often really hot here (had a phone battery "explode" on me once due to heat). I sweat a ton (hate getting my phone icky). Many of my jogging shorts lack pockets, and I don't like stuff strapped awkwardly to me. I can barely tolerate my iPod Shuffle clipped to my shirt collar and that stupid headphone cord's excessive bounciness (which I've learned to tuck into my shirt).

An Apple Watch and some kind of wireless earbuds would be awesome for me. But I've held off buying an Apple Watch because the price isn't worth it over using my shuffle unless it can do what I've considered buying a Garmin for. And AW2 with GPS would be just that. Really changes the value proposition to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuges, Someyoungguy, Night Spring and 1 other person
If it's still the fairly weighty watch one can currently get, I'll still pass. Waterproof-ness is great, as is independent GPS, but I can buy both a Fitbit AND a Misfit (since my Fitbit doesn't do swimming) and still have $100 leftover.
 
I wish they would make the sport stainless steel (at the same price of the current sport)
[doublepost=1471563749][/doublepost]
Soccertess said:
Ok, so with these features it's worth $200 at MOST! Sport should start at 150.

There are some great competitors coming out soon, so if Apple doesn't want to have it's market share wiped out like Android wiped them off with cell phones, they should reconsider the price.

Also, if I were Tim i would consider making it compatible with Android, as there are A LOT more android out there than iphones. Plus if this next Iphone is a dud like all the rumors are pointing to, might as well try and retain some customers ;)
Click to expand...

You know that most watches cost more than $150 and they just tell time right
 
Sunday Ironfoot said:
GPS would be handy, I can finally leave my iPhone at home when I go out jogging, and use bluetooth headphones to listen to music/podcasts.
Click to expand...

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?
 
dogslobber said:
Make it thin
Click to expand...

Apple makes nearly ALL of their products thinner, even the iPhones, which are thin enough already!
The one product though, which should seriously lose some thickness, this is the one they won't slim down.
Sigh..
 
cult hero said:
GPS and waterproof are enough. Covers the two things I'd like most:

1. Distance tracking without a phone.
2. Fitness tracking while in the water.
Click to expand...


My next fitness tracker would be something like that so I'd probably get a Vivosmart HR+, or less likely a Vivoactive.
 
gim said:
Apple makes nearly ALL of their products thinner, even the iPhones, which are thin enough already!
The one product though, which should seriously lose some thickness, this is the one they won't slim down.
Sigh..
Click to expand...

Even if they could slim it down, I imagine it would only be slight, perhaps a mm or two.

I believe Apple will want to keep a certain degree of weight and heft to give the impression of quality and durability. Many of the premium classic watches are thick and weighty.

That's partly what I loved about the iPhone 4. It just felt substantial, unlike the thin and hollow feeling iPhone 6.
 
pnoyblazed said:
drats! I wanted a facetime camera on it! Wishful thinking...
Click to expand...
ymmv, but, i'm not sure you really do... i have to say, even just holding that watch to use it as a viewfinder for the iPhone camera is quickly uncomfortable, and the idea of having a conversation that way is not enticing. i actually can only do FaceTime on the phone for a little while before having to sit down and prop it on something. it's painful to hold a camera in front of your face for minutes. just not ergonomic. /2¢.
 
CrystalQuest76 said:
Maybe with the third generation, there will be features that inspire me to spend my hard earned money on a watch that requires me to charge it every night. Until then I will continue to use the watch that I have and does not require charging or plugging in, or synchronization. Until i see those must have and can't live without features.
After all, saving money is not a crime.
[doublepost=1471561328][/doublepost]
I had a Seiko kenetic that charged with movement. After 8 years, it stopped moving. I like your solar charging idea. When that is introduced, i see the Apple Watch as something more seriously worth considering.
Click to expand...

I've had an Apple Watch since day one, charge it every 2-3 days and wear it throughout the day. Use it for texting, alerts and Apple Pay. It's been incredibly useful to me and well worth the money. To go shopping and not have to take your wallet or phone with you is an amazing feature for me to have...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR-LIZARD
Just make it faster... and I'm happy :)
[doublepost=1471566410][/doublepost]
Sunday Ironfoot said:
GPS would be handy, I can finally leave my iPhone at home when I go out jogging, and use bluetooth headphones to listen to music/podcasts.
Click to expand...

And have to manually put your music on the device like it's 2008?
 
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...
Hmm. Maybe because I remember when we used to do everything without a phone/computer and didn't instantly die? I'll even drive to go run an errand and not bring my phone. Gasp!

Seriously though, if I'm out for a run, I'm running. I'm not going to need to look something up. There is no call which can't wait until I get home. If I get hit by a car, odds are that jerk has a phone he can use to call 911.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Someyoungguy, Night Spring and igrover
i'd love an apple watch, but it doesn't look like apple watch 2 is going to be the one i buy.

still waiting for a few things:

thinner profile

more advances fitness features

some of the other suggestions like a small camera might be handy.

but the first 2 are essential for me, I'm not buying a notification device for that price. its a good notification device but the fitness is the area that would really define it as its own product line.
 
If it has a GPS I'll be ordering. I'm one of those runners who can't stand running with my iPhone. It's "heavy" compared to other things I wear (Garmin 220 - really lightweight), and you need a waterproof case/wrapper due to sweat, rain, fog, etc. Running is enough of a challenge without lugging an iPhone around.

Anyone doing the Ironman in Delaware, OH this weekend? If so, look for a guy wearing a Garmin 220 with a purple band on left wrist, and my Apple Watch on my right wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuges, Night Spring and gim
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring and tf_dc
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