Apple Watch Series 3 Expected to Debut in Fall 2017, Boosting Manufacturing Partner Quanta's Revenue

[deeddawg]

I've always worn watches, and I'm used to being able to see the time when the face is angled away from me—anything short of 90°. It's something you take for granted with an analog or always-on digital watch, and if you're used to it, having to arc your arm to wake the screen is a palpable annoyance.

Like many things, it is a far bigger issue in the imagination than it is in reality.

I bought an AW2 having spent years wearing Garmin sports watches on a daily basis, and other watches before that. As you describe, I was quite used to being able to glance at my watch to see the time without making any movement. I too was concerned about the screen being off except when activated by movement or tap or crown. Seemed like it'd be annoying.

The reality, as it turned out, was that it's not nearly the big deal I'd imagined it to be. Go figure.

So yeah, if you focus on that single aspect it can seem like it'd be a real annoyance. For me it really hasn't been. The many advantages / capabilities of the watch so far outweigh that downside that it'd have been silly for me to have let that keep me from buying one.

 

[The Game 161]

might skip series 3...very happy with series 2 as it is. Not sure how it can be made much better

 

[Kid Red]

Adding the radio antenna for cellular service will increase cost. Curious to see how that shakes out.

 

[Vanilla35]

It's not the pushing the start button it's more so I don't have to carry car keys.

Once I can do that and carry my passport and drivers licence digitally I can pretty much do away with carrying anything except an iPhone/Apple Watch.

Yeah I think that's everyone's end goal. Cards are especially annoying because that's what adds so much bulk to a wallet (assuming you ditched cash a long time ago), which is why it's frustrating when one tries to go all in with Apple Pay, but you can only use it at 30% of the places you go to.

Basically, it's a long and slow process for everyone, and I don't expect the keyless/walletless future to be within the next 5-8 years.

I think this is especially when it comes to car manufacturers. Features that piggy back off a smart watch, sure, but not being able to leave the key behind. Maybe they'll put some pre-drive confirmation you can do with your phone and key (like a bluetooth sync/identification), then you'll be able to leave the key behind, but that doesn't sound like something they'd do for various reasons.

 

[5105973]

LOL... people are more concerned about a possible bill increase vs their health. Interesting.

I have a cellular version of the Samsung Gear S2 Sport. I got it free from AT&T with the purchase of my Note 7 and I forget exactly what we pay for the plan on it but it's not too bad. It's been extremely convenient to have around and I wear it when I will be outside doing certain tasks or activities where I would find it inconvenient or impossible to keep my iPhone on me.

But I share your concerns about having a cellular radio strapped to my wrist all the time. So far I've not read any conclusive evidence it's dangerous but I also haven't read any conclusive evidence that it's not.

I wear my non cellular Gear S2 Classic or my Apple Series 2 most of the time. Even without concerns about the radio, the Gear S2 Sport has a band that isn't as soft and breathable as the Apple Sport band. It can get a little itchy and it's also a bit big on my little wrist.

 

[mi7chy]

Cellular device directly on skin... safe?

What difference when iPhones have some of the highest SAR numbers in the industry and they're placed right next to the brain or reproductive system.

 

[seadragon]

What difference when iPhones have some of the highest SAR numbers in the industry and they're placed right next to the body's reproductive system.

"Direct on skin" is the difference. Apple recommends 10mm clearance between iPhone and skin. Watch sits ON skin.

 

[rdavis41]

Seems to me to expect an increase in HD storage on the watch to house podcasts and music. Apple is slowly going to try and separate need to be at the side of an iPhone.

 

[LordQ]

This is nice and all, but why does watchOS 4 still don't have a Calculator app?

 

[Bucyrus]

A independent cellular connectivity is what would bring me back to the Apple Watch customers.

Apple can have my money when this bring this. I want to be able to workout with my phone, whether it's in the gym or out on a trail. Yes, I could put it down now but I like to be reachable to my family at all times. And also, for personal safety in case I were run into any medical issues while out on my own.

I'm on the sidelines waiting...

 

[Vanilla35]

"Direct on skin" is the difference. Apple recommends 10mm clearance between iPhone and skin. Watch sits ON skin.

I have a cellular version of the Samsung Gear S2 Sport. I got it free from AT&T with the purchase of my Note 7 and I forget exactly what we pay for the plan on it but it's not too bad. It's been extremely convenient to have around and I wear it when I will be outside doing certain tasks or activities where I would find it inconvenient or impossible to keep my iPhone on me.

But I share your concerns about having a cellular radio strapped to my wrist all the time. So far I've not read any conclusive evidence it's dangerous but I also haven't read any conclusive evidence that it's not.

I wear my non cellular Gear S2 Classic or my Apple Series 2 most of the time. Even without concerns about the radio, the Gear S2 Sport has a band that isn't as soft and breathable as the Apple Sport band. It can get a little itchy and it's also a bit big on my little wrist.

If our future inevitably includes wearables, including smart optics like contact lenses, then shouldn't everyone develop cancer in no time from the electromagnetic signals?

 

[mi7chy]

"Direct on skin" is the difference. Apple recommends 10mm clearance between iPhone and skin. Watch sits ON skin.

There's no vital organ on your wrist vs some of the highest SAR levels projected to your brain or reproductive system.

 

[seadragon]

There's no vital organ on your wrist vs some of the highest SAR levels projected to your brain or reproductive system.

Actually, skin is the largest organ and rather vital. Also, blood is flowing past the watch just under the skin (think pulse meter). Also, vital.

Something to consider anyways. Personally. I will not buy a cellular enabled watch. I may go back to wearing a traditional watch at that point.

 

[Vanilla35]

Actually, skin is the largest organ and rather vital. Also, blood is flowing past the watch just under the skin (think pulse meter). Also, vital.

Something to consider anyways. Personally. I will not buy a cellular enabled watch. I may go back to wearing a traditional watch at that point.

Is bluetooth radiation better than cellular radiation? Don't cell phones use radio waves, which is the weakest wavelength frequency due to longer but less frequent waves (less intense). These would also be classified as non-ionizing (can't damage DNA), which is why car radios, radios in general, and TV's use this technology without any health risk inside a normal household? Technically microwaves are also non-ionizing.

I don't know much about the fine details, but I believe what I said above leads general consensus to say that there wouldn't be a problem. I'm interested to hear what your perspective is though, because I do share discretion, but don't see much of a reason to prevent exposure as time goes on. Bluetooth is taking off like crazy. Apple Airpods also come to mind.

 

[seadragon]

Is bluetooth radiation better than cellular radiation? Don't cell phones use radio waves, which is the weakest wavelength frequency due to longer but less frequent waves (less intense). These would also be classified as non-ionizing (can't damage DNA), which is why car radios, radios in general, and TV's use this technology without any health risk inside a normal household? Technically microwaves are also non-ionizing.

I don't know much about the fine details, but I believe what I said above leads general consensus to say that there wouldn't be a problem. I'm interested to hear what your perspective is though, because I do share discretion, but don't see much of a reason to prevent exposure as time goes on. Bluetooth is taking off like crazy. Apple Airpods also come to mind.

Well, to be honest, I have no proof of anything as this is a very inconclusive topic. You mention Bluetooth and I do have concerns over it too. Especially when there has been a rather silent shift to Class 1 Bluetooth which is much more powerful than the more typical class 2. Apple calls it W1 and of course touts the robustness of the signal. But, it's that same boost in signal that concerns me. Especially for devices like air pods where the radio is basically in your ear. Class 1 Bluetooth in the ear. Scary!

I've read many articles on this complex topic. My takeaway is that when comparing wireless technologies, cellular is the one considered most "dangerous".

On a side note, I also educated myself in home wireless phones and as a result, I stopped using them in my house. I'm back to good quality hard wired phones. The standards in Europe are more stringent and companies must make their phones comply. In North America this is not the case. The base stations transmit huge amounts of RF energy even when on standby.

Again, I have no links to specific articles because my opinion is based on reading many many articles from different sources.

I find most people don't even think about these things and are only interested in the fun aspect of the devices.

I might be a bit sensitive to this topic as I watched my mom die of cancer last year and it scared the crap out of me. Horrible to watch and being totally helpless to do anything about it.

 

[Vanilla35]

Well, to be honest, I have no proof of anything as this is a very inconclusive topic. You mention Bluetooth and I do have concerns over it too. Especially when there has been a rather silent shift to Class 1 Bluetooth which is much more powerful than the more typical class 2. Apple calls it W1 and of course touts the robustness of the signal. But, it's that same boost in signal that concerns me. Especially for devices like air pods where the radio is basically in your ear. Class 1 Bluetooth in the ear. Scary!

I've read many articles on this complex topic. My takeaway is that when comparing wireless technologies, cellular is the one considered most "dangerous".

On a side note, I also educated myself in home wireless phones and as a result, I stopped using them in my house. I'm back to good quality hard wired phones. The standards in Europe are more stringent and companies must make their phones comply. In North America this is not the case. The base stations transmit huge amounts of RF energy even when on standby.

Again, I have no links to specific articles because my opinion is based on reading many many articles from different sources.

I find most people don't even think about these things and are only interested in the fun aspect of the devices.

I might be a bit sensitive to this topic as I watched my mom die of cancer last year and it scared the crap out of me. Horrible to watch and being totally helpless to do anything about it.

Sorry to hear about your mother, I feel for you on that, and similarly if there was any indication of health issues in the family/genetics, I would rightfully be concerned as well.

Aside from that, I believe the general premise is a little misguided, I'll explain my thinking. 1) Fairly certain that Class 1, 2, and 3 for Bluetooth all use the same frequency (which is what matters for "damaging" cells), and the only difference between them is strength, which means any radiation would essentially be the same between classes. 2) I believe the low US standards applies to many things for American products vs. European, and while I agree this seems like a particularly important one, I don't see people developing cancers or having any issues directly relating to any of the wireless devices that people (US or otherwise) have been consuming/utilizing in very large amounts over the last 2-3 decades. *One could say that we'll if any issues arise in 10, 20, 30 years, when these people get older; but we're getting to that point now, and nothing new is developing*

My perspectives goes further with the assumption that as the future rolls out, we will get more and more wireless, and therefore something must give in these situations - unless we further develop biologically to become immune to these types of radiation (unlikely, especially over an extremely short period), the truth is that we are simply not influenced very much by them.

 

[seadragon]

Sorry to hear about your mother, I feel for you on that, and similarly if there was any indication of health issues in the family/genetics, I would rightfully be concerned as well.

Aside from that, I believe the general premise is a little misguided, I'll explain my thinking. 1) Fairly certain that Class 1, 2, and 3 for Bluetooth all use the same frequency (which is what matters for "damaging" cells), and the only difference between them is strength, which means any radiation would essentially be the same between classes. 2) I believe the low US standards applies to many things for American products vs. European, and while I agree this seems like a particularly important one, I don't see people developing cancers or having any issues directly relating to any of the wireless devices that people (US or otherwise) have been consuming/utilizing in very large amounts over the last 2-3 decades. *One could say that we'll if any issues arise in 10, 20, 30 years, when these people get older; but we're getting to that point now, and nothing new is developing*

My perspectives goes further with the assumption that as the future rolls out, we will get more and more wireless, and therefore something must give in these situations - unless we further develop biologically to become immune to these types of radiation (unlikely, especially over an extremely short period), the truth is that we are simply not influenced very much by them.

Thanks... I appreciate hearing your perspectives.

In the end, it's hard to know for sure what effect, if any, we will have as a result of living in a wireless world.

I still wouldn't want to live in a house under high voltage lines. LOL.

 

[albebaubles]

Is it possible to share the cell connection and have the phone act as a hotspot? Or does that just work for data?

I can take a call on my cell and ansewer it on my iPad with the handoff, so there has to be a way to make it work with handoff and hotspot connections.. I think?

No value if you need your phone with you....

 

[magicschoolbus]

No value if you need your phone with you....

I see what your saying. But what's the point of having a cell connected watch? What advantages does it give you?

 

[Gameboy70]

Like many things, it is a far bigger issue in the imagination than it is in reality.

I bought an AW2 having spent years wearing Garmin sports watches on a daily basis, and other watches before that. As you describe, I was quite used to being able to glance at my watch to see the time without making any movement. I too was concerned about the screen being off except when activated by movement or tap or crown. Seemed like it'd be annoying.

The reality, as it turned out, was that it's not nearly the big deal I'd imagined it to be. Go figure.

So yeah, if you focus on that single aspect it can seem like it'd be a real annoyance. For me it really hasn't been. The many advantages / capabilities of the watch so far outweigh that downside that it'd have been silly for me to have let that keep me from buying one.

So it turned out to be less of an annoyance for you, but it was actually more of an annoyance than I anticipated. Prior to getting the Watch, it didn't even occur to me that lacking a persistent display might be an issue, and when I did initially find it annoying, I expected that to wear off; it hasn't—two years in.

Because of the many benefits of the Apple Watch, I continue to wear it in spite of the Raise to Wake kludge, not because of it. It's a distinct improvement opportunity that's far more significant than, say, custom watch faces.

 

[urbanmacUser]

I'd like to see TouchID added, perhaps via a smart band. Some stuff on the watch like Apple Pay I don't use as typing in a PIN is a pain.

Wifi would be nice but I assume not possible due to battery drain.

 

[AidenL]

I would really like user selectable always on as an option also.
[doublepost=1501166062][/doublepost]

I'd like to see TouchID added, perhaps via a smart band. Some stuff on the watch like Apple Pay I don't use as typing in a PIN is a pain.

Wifi would be nice but I assume not possible due to battery drain.

Do you have to type in a PIN?

Over here its just double click the side button and boom, job done.

 

[recoil80]

Do you have to type in a PIN?

Over here its just double click the side button and boom, job done.

Yeah, that's how it works and is super convenient.
That's my favourite feature of the AW, I don't have to reach out for my wallet or my iPhone to pay. I'd love to be able to use it access the subway and even to replace my company badge, it would save space in my wallet

 

[kdarling]

Do you have to type in a PIN?

Perhaps they meant having to enable a long passcode on the phone, in order to use Apple Pay at all.

Especially on a non-TouchId phone like the 5C or 5S, that could be an extra pain.