Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Newtons Apple, May 4, 2015.
enjoy voiding your warranty.
Good going, Engadget. Way to fall flat on the premise.
As long as you didn't damage the port cover, there should be no way for them to tell that you've used it.
Why would that void your warranty?
I'm quite interested in this. The watch already charges pretty quickly, but if I could plug in a quick 15-30 minute power charge to get it from 20%-80% that'd be great.
I don't understand the appeal of this. Why would I want a "power strap" or a "smart strap" when such a thing is only going to add bulk and make wearing the watch uncomfortable?
I think the band makers have an opportunity for some crazy extended battery/bands. I can see that solar cell band now!
How do you know that it, what ever "it" is will add bulk and make wearing the watch uncomfortable?
Solar (or light) could never offer enough energy to matter, unless you could have close to a sq. foot of solar cells. Might have to ware a large hat with cells on it.
Umm... Physics? A band with more stuff in it must be larger/thicker to accommodate that stuff. Let's take your solar cell example. Solar cells have their own electronics which must be accommodated. Not to mention you can't just wire it straight into the port. You need some sort of controller otherwise you can end up damaging the battery. That controller takes up space too.
So now you have all these electronic components adding thickness to the strap. Add in the fact that they're rigid, thus reducing the flexibility of the strap. Finally, I assume you would have to add in some sort of support structure so that the stresses of flexing the remaining flexible parts of the strap are not transferred directly to the electronics. Add all of that together and I imagine you end up with something looking more like the Galaxy Gear.
Apple has never launched a product before with a hardware feature not ready to be used immediately, but at some time in the future.
Wet dreams about enabling this diagnostic port for additional functionality later are just that... wet dreams.
Because you have to break the cover plate off.
Are people having battery issues? My watch is at 40-50% when I charge it every night. It only leaves my wrist for one hour a day. I can't see a market for bulky battery straps, unless they are going to last a week. If it just doubles/triples battery life then you would have to charge it every two/three days. Remembering to do that is more inconvenient and more likely to result in forgetting to charge it, than simply getting into a daily routine.
Wrong, Bluetooth on the iPod touch 2nd gen. It shipped with the chip but no functionality till an iOS update later.
In two words: scare tactic.
And before even more people get their hopes up:
Opinion: The secret Apple Watch port should probably stay hidden
Yes, it's an opinion. But it's a well reasoned one if you ask me.
This is a copy/paste of my response to a posting on Reddit titled "Added Functionality through new bands for Apple watch?":
As others have noted, the current port is most likely a diagnostic port. That said, I hope that Apple will release bands in the future that provide additional functionality. Obviously this is speculation, but here's why it could happen:
Currently watches and fitness bands, such as the Microsoft Band and Jawbone UP3 have sensors located in the band. The band provides more contact points from which (more) sensors can take measurements.
Other manufacturers, such has Pebble, have already announced extensibility via straps/bands. Apple has always been happy to let others enter a product category first, then ultimately entering the market themselves with a better and/or more appealing implementation.
Apple has already patented technology that would perfectly suit a watch strap. For example, this patent is for a flexible battery that could be used in "...wristwatches, calculators, laptop computers, tablet computers, and/or music players." (emphasis mine)
The Apple Watch isn't quite the watch Apple had hoped to release, especially in regards to health/fitness tracking. They were forced to abandon a number of health related sensor technologies from the first generation Apple Watch. It's possible that these sensors may perform better distributed around the wrist in the band. Or, even if Apple prefers to locate all sensors on the back of the watch, the size of the sensors themselves may not shrink quickly enough within the time frame Apple wants to bring them to market (i.e., in 10 years the sensors may be microscopically sized, but Apple might want to bring the technology to market in 5 years, etc.)
It's a safe assumption that Apple will seek to reduce the thickness of the Apple Watch over successive generations (as they have done with the iPhone, iPad, MacBooks, etc.) Even with Moore's Law, etc., it's possible that Apple will run into limits as to how much technology they can squeeze into the current Apple Watch casing (especially true of batteries. The pace of battery technology development is much slower than other technologies).
(Note: this next point is my ultimate dream/fantasy for the Apple Watch)
The Apple Watch may evolve into a mobile device that functions completely independently of an iPhone, providing mobile calling, data, GPS, etc. We won't see this happen anytime soon, but if Apple has this as a goal, then they may need to house the additional technology in the strap/band as an interim step towards the day when all of it could be house in the watch body itself. (Note: even if Apple Watch evolved into a fully independent mobile device, I do not expect it to replace iPhones, because people still need/want to see information on a much larger screens. And even if there was a segment of consumers that would be willing to forgo an iPhone completely, Apple has shown that it doesn't mind cannibalizing one of its own product's sales in lieu of another. (See: iPad mini vs. iPad, etc.))
Having said all that, what is the next technology we're likely to see in future Apple Watch updates? If I had to bet, I'd say GPS. GPS has obvious implications for mapping and fitness: many people (myself included) would love to leave the iPhone at home while exercising, all the while having the route mapped by the Apple Watch. Unfortunately, GPS will kill Apple Watch's battery life. So what are Apple's choices?
Put GPS in the Apple Watch case, with the caveat that it will drain your battery very quickly. (This assumes no revolutionary advances in battery technology in the next few years).
Make a larger version of the Apple Watch that houses GPS (and possibly other sensors) and a larger battery.
Put GPS into the Apple watch and sell a band that has a battery that extends the watch's uptime. (See the patent above).
Sell a band that houses both the GPS (other sensors, etc.) and the extended battery.
Here are the pros/cons of each of the above four points as I see them:
Possible, but frankly seems very un-Apple like to me, as they have always either maintained or improved battery life over successive generations (true for iPhone, iPad, etc.)
I wouldn't mind seeing the Apple Watch Sport evolve into a true "sport watch". Fitness enthusiasts have already demonstrated that they are willing to wear slightly larger/bulkier watches in exchange for tracking/sensor functionality. That said, Apple has typically reduced the size of their products over successive generations (excluding iPad 3 which heavier than iPad 1 and 2). Also, while a segment of the consumer market would love a device like this, a larger segment would most likely not.
The downside of this solution is: what happens if you don't wear the band with the extend battery? Would Apple still let you use the GPS, knowing it would kill the Apple Watch's internal battery? Doesn't seem likely.
Combining the extended battery and GPS into one band ensures that the watch always has sufficient battery to power GPS (in this solution it's possible that the GPS would only draw power from the extended battery, ensuring that the watch itself always has enough power for itself). The downside of this solution is that you only get GPS if you wear this band.
Another drawback with all of the above is that Apple spent a lot of time creating and marketing interchangeable bands for the Apple Watch, with an emphasis on fashion and variety. The band solutions I describe above run somewhat counter to this, i.e., if you wanted GPS functionality or the extended battery, the choice of band styles or colors would probably be quite limited. That said, I think "enhanced functionality" bands would be acceptable both by Apple and by consumers if they are marketed and understood to be used in specific scenarios, i.e., "I can wear the sport/GPS band when exercising, and wear my fashionable band when going out to dinner.")
Finally, and to be clear, the most Apple like solution (i.e., elegant, minimal, etc.) is to house everything within the watch case, which itself would is slim and offers "all day" battery life. I have no doubt we'll see this one day, but unless Apple is willing to wait many years, they may have no choice but to utilize bands that provide extended functionality (which isn't so bad, it'll be another revenue/profit making SKU for the company. <sigh>)
Not just that they even have the blood oxygen sensor in the watch but it's disabled for now until they can get the approval. I thought it was really cool that they did this because we all assumed they would just wait till version 2 to put this in there.
A tiny battery and a "secret" blood oxygen monitor
An Apple Watch teardown at iFixit revealed two other notable features: a tiny battery and a deactivated blood oxygen monitor.
The Apple Watch's battery has a capacity of just 205 mAh, which is much smaller than the 300 mAh batteries found in the Samsung (NASDAQOTH: SSNLF ) Gear Live and Moto 360. Apple claims that the battery should last up to 18 hours, which is comparable to most high-end Android Wear devices. Smaller batteries also charge quickly. Apple claims that the smartwatch requires just 1.5 hours to charge to 80%.
The deactivated blood oxygen monitor was a surprising discovery, since there aren't any apps that utilize it yet. The sensors deliver light pulses through the skin and measure the number of oxygen molecules which reflect the light back. This suggests that upcoming apps, synchronized to HealthKit, could offer deeper health tracking features beyond tracking steps and heart rates. Last year, Samsung introduced the Simband, a health-tracking wearable which uses modular light pulse sensors for similar purposes.
Ok, maybe they have enabled some built-in, invisible from outside hardware before. But a port hidden under cover?! That's just ultra-unapple-y. Enabling this port will require a visit to a store. Can you imagine millions of people storming the stores on the first day the port is announced public?
Anyone tried to push that little dent on the cover with a sharp tool? Maybe it will rotate like that secret bookshelf in the movies?
If you break the plate off you are doing it wrong.
Nobody is going to be able to access this themselves without specialized tools.
Thanks for that useless lesson in electronics.
If Apple can get FDA approval then expect the blood oxygen monitor functionality to be enabled but as some users find it difficult to get the pulse monitor working accurately I don't think you will see that function in gen 1 of the apple watch.
Ifixit had to disassemble the watch to get it off, so good luck.
Thanks but I have no need to remove mine.
I am just reporting what I read and some of you go off the DEEP END!