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 Has 8GB of Storage, Limited to 2GB for Music and 75MB for Photos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But then you wouldn't be able to get any notifications, phone calls, etc. I understand what you're saying but the watch is so dependent on the iPhone it's useless without it.
All you're saying to me is you should buy a shuffle, which would give you much more space for music and battery life. Oh, and you wouldn't pay an arm and a leg for it.
but answer this: can it track the usual stuff without the iphone on my arm? yes or no?
Plenty of people have their phone on them when they run, for numerous practical reasons, chiefly safety. e.g. I use Spotify so I need my phone for my music, and I live in central London so I generally run from home base to somewhere to do something (lunch, shopping, meeting friends for a drink etc.) and Tube it home, so I want my phone on me when I get to where I'm going. The Apple Watch will replace my Garmin, I can see it already.
If you're in the gym then you probably want as little clutter on you as possible and might only want some tunes and the accelerometer in the device, to use with the workouts app. A watch plus some bluetooth headphones would be perfect, even better than the Shuffle, which is the best gym device currently.
Then buy a shuffle, which has more space, battery life and isn't super expensive.
I'll be jogging sans iPhone, since I can make payments via the watch and I don't need a GPS plot of my same old runs. thus, music while working out is a plus.
Lots of reasons, such as listening to music, to use a fitness app or for emergencies. If many people didn't do that, there wouldn't be a big selection of armbands for holding the iPhone and other smartphones during a run.
Useful
My view is this will be useful for me. And I realise it will not be useful to everyone.
Why?
1. Because I want something small that I can use to count my steps (I try and do 10,000 a day) and the watch will tell me this. I will not need to take my iPhone out with me for the steps to be counted. I do not need to know where I have been (therefore I do not need GPS on the watch) as I will have just been there. I realise some people DO want to know where they have been on a map and that is fine. But for me, it is about how far I have walked / calories burnt etc not the route I have taken. I did once have a GPS watch but found it more useful for measuring how far I'd walked not WHERE I'd walked.
2. I want to listen to music during my walk with the dog and having the storage referred to gives me 200+ tunes to listen to with bluetooth earphones. More than enough for 10,000 steps.
3. I always wear a watch for telling me the time / date. Tick.
4. I actually do not think the watch I will purchase (£339) is expensive compared to some models of watches I own. And given what I have said above, the
Watch will do much more that will prove to be useful. Would I pay £600+ for a watch? Probably not but hey - I don't have to.
5. In addition, I work from home and having the watch with me instead of carrying around my phone in my pocket, whether upstairs, in the garden etc, will be very useful. Including for counting my steps, answering messages, quick calls etc.
6. I sometimes use the treadmill in the house and at the moment to count my steps I have to carry my phone. Now I can leave it downstairs and use the watch, whilst still listening to music through bluetooth headphones (and of course still receive notifications).
7. I like the idea of directions when walking on the watch - when we travel I will be able to use directions on the watch, and keep my phone in my bag instead of carrying it in my hand which sometimes isn't a great thing for security reasons. Again I will also be able to receive notifications without taking the phone out of the bag.
I consider the watch will allow me to use the phone less and less.
So for my money the watch works a treat.
Just my two pence worth.
Shawn
My view is this will be useful for me. And I realise it will not be useful to everyone.
Why?
1. Because I want something small that I can use to count my steps (I try and do 10,000 a day) and the watch will tell me this. I will not need to take my iPhone out with me for the steps to be counted. I do not need to know where I have been (therefore I do not need GPS on the watch) as I will have just been there. I realise some people DO want to know where they have been on a map and that is fine. But for me, it is about how far I have walked / calories burnt etc not the route I have taken. I did once have a GPS watch but found it more useful for measuring how far I'd walked not WHERE I'd walked.
2. I want to listen to music during my walk with the dog and having the storage referred to gives me 200+ tunes to listen to with bluetooth earphones. More than enough for 10,000 steps.
3. I always wear a watch for telling me the time / date. Tick.
4. I actually do not think the watch I will purchase (£339) is expensive compared to some models of watches I own. And given what I have said above, the
Watch will do much more that will prove to be useful. Would I pay £600+ for a watch? Probably not but hey - I don't have to.5. In addition, I work from home and having the watch with me instead of carrying around my phone in my pocket, whether upstairs, in the garden etc, will be very useful. Including for counting my steps, answering messages, quick calls etc.
6. I sometimes use the treadmill in the house and at the moment to count my steps I have to carry my phone. Now I can leave it downstairs and use the watch, whilst still listening to music through bluetooth headphones (and of course still receive notifications).
7. I like the idea of directions when walking on the watch - when we travel I will be able to use directions on the watch, and keep my phone in my bag instead of carrying it in my hand which sometimes isn't a great thing for security reasons. Again I will also be able to receive notifications without taking the phone out of the bag.
I consider the watch will allow me to use the phone less and less.
So for my money the watch works a treat.
Just my two pence worth.
Shawn
I have Samsung Gear 2 Neo which I bought on Black Friday last year for a $100. It pretty much does everything the Apple Watch does plus a bit more.
Worked fine, no complaints but after about a month the novelty wore off and I really didn't see the point of wearing it when I could just take my phone out my pocket. As of now it's sitting back in the box in a drawer.
I think the Apple watch will probably sell ok. Much more than any Android/Tizen watch but I just don't see the point of paying a lot of money for something a lot of people will get tired of in a month or two.
Worked fine, no complaints but after about a month the novelty wore off and I really didn't see the point of wearing it when I could just take my phone out my pocket. As of now it's sitting back in the box in a drawer.
I think the Apple watch will probably sell ok. Much more than any Android/Tizen watch but I just don't see the point of paying a lot of money for something a lot of people will get tired of in a month or two.
That is because your thinking of it like a phone and not a watch. I can get a watch out of a $.25 gum ball machine that does the same exact job as a presidential series Rolex. The cost isn't tied to the electronics.
However, I don't see how polished stainless should command such a huge increase in retail price. It strikes me that Apple's pricing is based on the ego of the buyer and the knowledge that those with means will pay more just to show they can. Rolex is a good example. Terrible at keeping time, but looks nice and feeds the ego of wearer.
That was my problem with the Moto 360. The novelty wore off, and instead of using a device that is limited in functionality, I just took the phone out of my pocket and enjoyed full functionality.
The battery life of my Iphone 6 Plus has been the best advancement in smartphones for me....
Yes it plays music over BT independent of your iPhone. Yes, it will use GPS to track your run but only if you have your iPhone with you. If you don't run w/ your iPhone then the watch will only count steps, distance, and pace.
Gold at $10K - that's the problem. In a year, the new watch will be a millimeter thinner, and have more memory, processor, whatever.
and you have a ten thousand watch that is as relevant as the iphone 4 is today.
The price is related to the materials cost, but fashion is a multiplying factor for the high end thing.
Gold is around $1600 per ounce and stainless steel is about .05 cents per ounce. Aluminum is around .06 cents per ounce current pricing. That's the difference. These numbers are based off the general metals market. Apple, under Sir Ive, seems to have become a foundry as well as a tech co.
Dale
The watch is pretty much useless without the phone. Which the logical person will say...
why am I paying $500 for a tiny auxillary screen for my phone??
The screen is different too. The steel watch uses a sapphire screen. I have no idea whether this justifies the extra cost though.
It also measures heartbeats as well as tracks the distance ran, which are also nice perks.
If both your 6 plus and your watch are on the same wifi network, then the phone/watch work using wifi, not bluetooth, and it will work. Maybe park your car nearest to the building and you'll be in wifi range?
If the gym doesn't have wifi, then you only get 100-300 feet on bluetooth.