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 3 Won't Have 'Obvious Change' to Form Factor, LTE to Be Main Selling Point
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah and they do exactly the same thing. I wonder how Xiaomi does it?
It's a common misconception that everybody here is a single person. We don't all want the same thing.
It looked dated on release.
Battery is not "fine." If it was fine then apple wouldn't need to turn the screen off when I don't flick my wrist just perfectly.
And if it was fine then Apple could support third party Watch faces without being concerned about power consumption.
And if it was fine then Apple could support third party Watch faces without being concerned about power consumption.
LTE will be useful if you lose your Apple watch in the ocean. Just use the Find my Watch app on your iPhone and locate the general area where your watch may be located and just dive down and grab it.
Tee hee. This seems likely.Seriously, those who want LTE connectivity will pay for the service. Those who don't want LTE will get the regular AW3. Those who want LTE but don't want to pay for the service, they'll just have to get the regular AW3 or suck it up and pay for the service. Choice is good thing.
Apple offering 2 years free service...
But then you are forgetting the most important part...there is a third option...
If you don’t want or don’t feel you need LTE you could always buy the in a month much cheaper, AW2 or don’t buy at all If you already own It.
So, If there is no redesign what is the selling point of the no LTE AW3 version?
The way I see it, or every model comes with LTE or something more than battery life comes into play.
If not what is the point of buying an AW3 no LTE version instead of a cheaper AW2?
10% more battery life?
That wouldn’t be a selling point...they would need to quadruple battery life to make of It a selling point, in that case it would be huge.
As someone who is on the move basically all day I would be happy to not get a thinner watch if the space was used for some kind of kinetic charging system. It likely wouldn't be enough to fully charge the battery but if it meant my battery would survive up to 14 hour days at work, I'm good with it
Battery improvements would be welcome. Fitbits can show notifications from phones and track sleep with still about a week of battery life. I've heard rumors of Cook mucking about with a glucose sensor of some kind. If that does come available, and is reasonably priced, I would certainly take some interest. Sudden glucose drops in the middle of the night are not fun.
Those seem like issues specific to you and not general users. I’m not convinced. I think battery life is adequate.
So you think I'm the only one who wishes for third party watch faces or that the watch always displayed the watch face instead of turning off?
That explains why everyone is still wearing those LED watches from the 70's that you had to press a button to show the time.
Third party watch faces would be nice, but I don’t think battery life is why they don’t exist. Why do you need the face to be on 24/7? You’re not looking at your Watch every second are you, so what’s the benefit? The face lights up right as I raise it to look at it and turns off when I’m no longer looking. Frankly it would annoy me if it never turned off. It would draw too much attention, amongst other annoyances.
Great that this will have LTE - but I'm sure AT$T is already building plans to get yet another add on for 'only' $20 a month to use LTE on your watch..
What Apple really needs to focus on is the health sensors. The AW2 was great for swimmers like myself, but it's still lacking. I want better heart rate sensors, blood pressure , UV and Bluetooth 5.0 without decreasing the battery.
Even after a long swim or run, usually charging my watch while I shower is more than enough. Could it be better so I can track my sleep nightly? Sure, but that tech is questionable and there are already good AW apps that do what other wearables do. For most people, unless they're training 5+ hours a day, the battery life is adequate. Some have mentioned they only charge it every 2 days.
Even after a long swim or run, usually charging my watch while I shower is more than enough. Could it be better so I can track my sleep nightly? Sure, but that tech is questionable and there are already good AW apps that do what other wearables do. For most people, unless they're training 5+ hours a day, the battery life is adequate. Some have mentioned they only charge it every 2 days.
I think it goes back to when Gurman claimed Greg Christie was forced out of Apple by Jony Ive. I even saw some former Apple employees go on Twitter to denounce that story. Gurman also ran a story about Apple & PR which I don’t think went over too well with people like Gruber. I don’t think Gruber likes being thought of as an Apple apologist/hack. Gurman came across to me as someone with a major chip on his shoulder, as though the rest of the Apple blogging community didn’t give him enough respect/credit.
AT&T already has non-apple wearables plan; it’s $10 monthly to add to unlimited plans and I’m sure it will be the same for ⌚️
HAhahah!! Apple offering a product for 'free' ... right.Tee hee. This seems likely.
Apple offering 2 years free service...
Probably not. I checked AT&T and they are vague about it. Your carrier wants you off that plan. I don't think there's anything technically barring a standalone plan for a smartwatch. Will they sell you one, that's the question.
No I'm saying nothing of the sort. Those are your words. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.
This here: "miniaturize hardware enough to fit an LTE radio". What does that mean? You don't have to miniaturize hardware to make an LTE radio fit. If anything it would be the opposite, miniaturize the LTE radio. Regardless, no I don't think Apple would be subsidizing customers cellular bill just to push LTE Apple watches. It's typically not their m.o. The closest I think they might get (I doubt it though) is subsidizing 3 month of service with an auto pay after 90 days.
This is exactly what doesn't interest me about LTE. I don't have any interest in paying any additional fees to my monthly carrier as I already do now. And, LTE has no direct benefit to me, as Bluetooth offers all the functionality that I would need with my iPhone nearby.
The design choice is okay with me. LTE brings this thing in the realm of usefulness to me. But I am assuming ATT is going to milk early adopters for all their worth and charge $10-20/month to share data with an existing plan. Which is a non starter. Wouldn't even consider $120/year to use this thing. $240/year is a ***** joke!
I will buy one if
(1) A low end LTE version can be had for $499
(2) Wireless providers let you add the watch to an existing plan for no charge.
I will buy one if
(1) A low end LTE version can be had for $499
(2) Wireless providers let you add the watch to an existing plan for no charge.
I think this will be part of it too. WatchOS 4 brings a lot of changes to Music (multiple playlists, auto syncing, etc).
There are already other LTE-enabled smartwatches, right?
How to carriers do billing for them?
And is it worth it?
How to carriers do billing for them?
And is it worth it?
I think carriers that do support other cellular connected smart watches allow them to access an existing account & data for $5-10/month. Similar to other devices that you add on.
As for being worth it, I’d say that’s totally up to each individual. I can see people not feeling the need or want to have a cellular connection on their watch, while others will want to have it. I know I’d definitely like to have cellular on my watch