Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wow... those mockups, not the best.

I see nothing wrong with envisioning the Apple Watch 2, it might help some who are the fence about purchasing an Apple Watch 1. Some features are obviously missing; GPS and waterproofing being two specific examples. Honestly, with all the sleep analysis options in HealthKit I'm surprised the Apple Watch doesn't have any sort of native implementation. I can also definitely see Apple turning the Apple Watch 1 into a "C" model next year with inexpensive plastic casing.
 
For whatever it's worth, it's indisputable (right?) that Ive and company are currently well into the process of designing Apple Watch 2. So there's someone (rather important) currently thinking about these questions, and they're certainly not saying "Hey, let's just see how Version 1 works out."

But yeah, not a fan of 9to5's mockups. Have to presume that new bands, new case materials, and probably new colors are coming, and 4Q 2015 is an obvious time to introduce them. More-drastic design changes are harder to predict and seem likely to be further off.
 
What is "old" tech in the Watch? Is the OLED screen old tech? The S1 chip? Taptic engine?

Well, a small rectangular OLED display can hardly be called state of the art. It looks like something from the 1980s. It doesn't stand out from other smartwatches as futuristic tech like the round ones do.

Plus it has a pretty big bezel. Even Apple says that they depend on app backgrounds being black to make their screen look larger.

The S1 resin filled package is nothing new either. The X-rays of it show that it doesn't even use multi-layer chips or individual die or anything like that, which is often a reason to use such a module.

In fact, it's just made up of pretty standard chips, like every other smartwatch board out there. It's interesting how much some of them look alike. From my research, the chips that have been identified so far:

circuit_boards2.png

I mean, there's only so many ways to do the same basic design.
 
Last edited:
thanks for those comparison images.

I will admit, seeing at how Apple are supposed, so people say here, do all there own in-house chip design, I'm actually quite surprised how 'bitty' it looks.

Certainly, from those images, which give a general overview, nothing that I'd say really stood out and SHOUTED, look at how much more advanced the way we make things is.

I know what is looks like, does not really matter, it's what is does, I guess seeing as how Apple show off these things, one tend to expect something obviously more advanced than other firms who don't have as much money and one could say less other resources in some areas.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.