I get moderator mail for light sarcasm. What do you get for this fascistic rant. Stop tell people
what to think--its a forum
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.
Faster Apple Watch 2 With GPS, Barometer, Larger Battery, and Same Thickness to Launch Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
what to think--its a forum
Such as?
I'm not up to speed on smart watch developments. What are competitors doing?
Ballmer could boast the same thing under microsoft. But long term he destroyed the company
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Do you speak for everyone? I for one, an many people i know, would love to go out with just my watch, and be able to use the basic function on the match without lugging around my iPhone 6s+, i would love nothing more than to go for a run with my watch, bluetooth headphones and a water bottle. For many folks i know, and if you look at the early poster on the watch forums, the largest criticism was the lack of GPS, and it's fatal co-dependence on the iPhone, that was slow and clumsy. Although the speed has improved, and some apps now work natively, the largest flaw that remains for me is the battery life.
I remember the time in MR when Kuo was actually ridiculed and mocked by the community as he would just come with hundreds of random things, some may be true, other were farcical and far fetched.
I am curious what you think they should do or even could do?
I love that we live in an age they have squeezed a computer and more into wrist watch and its still not good enough or small enough. The form factor is pretty good, as components shrink they will continue to use the space for a bigger battery or other component features.
If Niantic comes out with a Pokémon Go watch app, I'll be all over it. Until then, I have a FitBit that does just fine for me.
[doublepost=1470670925][/doublepost]
I cant speak for the person you asked, but I would like it a bit thinner and lighter, as well as curved. However I want to retain battery life, so I would sacrifice the thin and light improvements for that... still want it curved though.
[doublepost=1470670925][/doublepost]
I cant speak for the person you asked, but I would like it a bit thinner and lighter, as well as curved. However I want to retain battery life, so I would sacrifice the thin and light improvements for that... still want it curved though.
I'll only consider it if the performance is significantly better. I don't really care about adding in other capabilities such as GPS or FaceTime. What it needs:
- Faster processor
- More RAM for multitasking
- Faster wireless connection to the iPhone for loading data
- Improved taptic engine that doesn't get "mushy" over time
- Improved speakers that sound crisper with higher volume output
- Legitimate, Apple-approved waterproofing complete with water activity monitoring
- Better graphics chip for running simple games like Pong without it lagging to crap
- Battery life that can get through a full second day if I forget to charge (which happens about once a month for me)
- A 46-48mm size option for only $50 more
- A warm gunmetal or space gray stainless steel model. The space black is too dark for me.
I am really hoping for it to work completely independently from the iPhone (eventually). That would be an incredible achievement by Apples designers.
And this seems to be the agreed consensus with GPS. Most are looking forward to this over LTE. I'm confident GPS will be in Watch 2.
I think if battery life is better say a day and a half then it would be a great upgrade from watch 1.
Are you sure they buy iPhone for the camera? Why not Lumia then? Had much better camera. I think they buy iPhone because of iOS in the first place and due to perceived quality, popularity and status in some markets.
The point is that when you sell a lot of models of the same device for whatever reasons in the end customers end up with a bunch of models and get confused. Some do not realize the real difference until they run into limits and discover the purchased device is missing a feature which could be useful for them. Most will just buy a cheaper device thinking why pay more if it's nearly the same. A lot of people just get the basic 16Gb iPhone only to realize later it's not enough at all for normal usage.
In the case of iPads it was a reasonable exception, not many will need and want to get an additional SIM card and data plan for their tablet, most just use Wi-Fi. With watch and GPS it's not reasonable. GPS doesn't require a SIM card, it is not a gimmick, not something uber-expensive, it is a basic feature for the modern smartwatch, which Apple actively pushes as a device for running and training. The price for GPS module is like a couple of $, so the single argument of reducing cost to make a device more affordable for more users is absolutely not an argument here. What Apple tries to do is to get more money from those who will pay extra $100 for GPS enabled device.
And in the case of iPads Apple sells way too many models: current generation in 3 sizes, plus cellular/not cellular models, plus previous generations. Same with iPhones. Features are being spread thin over the whole range. 3D touch, no 3D touch, Live Photos, no Live Photos, single camera, dual camera... it feels like a lottery today. Even some software features like Live Photos in iOS 9 and 'raise to wake' in iOS 10 are artitifically limited to the last 2 generations at the cost of the user experience. Pure greed.
It was the same before Steve Jobs returned to Apple: dozens of different Mac models. He did cut it to just 4. Now Tim's greed convolutes the product lineup again. There should be just the last generation on sale for the price of the previous one if you truly care about customers as you always proclaim in the interviews. Components get cheaper over years, you still make a huge profit with a big premium on your devices. If you start selling previous generation $100 cheaper you just confuse your customers most of which are not tech savvy and do not realize the trick, that the device is limited in functionality or it's 2-3 years old model or it will be obsolete the next year. You also delay the adoption of new features by users and developers. You force developers to support older tech with limited features for prolonged periods of time, because it's still being sold. Devs are not really pushed to adopt new features since it's very slowly adopted by the users. Users even with the latest tech not always can use those features in 3rd party apps since it's slowly adopted by devs. Who wins here? Only Apple, not its users, not its developers.
Your quote:
I and others pointing out the benefits of GPS were routinely ridiculed on these forums and told how unecessary GPS was, so either they were just hopeless fanbois, or they legitimately had no need for the functionality.
Considering the Apple Watch potential as the sport and health tracking device and the price of GPS modules, they most probably were hopeless fanboys. You were rught about GPS and shouldn't defend them now.
Not bashing apple or anything, but I recently came across a good apple watch competitor for general smartwatch and fitness features that doesn't suck (android wear) and also doesn't cost a ton; the Garmin VivoActive HR. Complicated name, good product though - and several day battery life is a plus. I suggest checking it out as well, but I completely agree the AWatch 2 looks great.
As someone who loves cycling GPS would be welcomed with open arms and would be a selling point for me personally.
As I will be switching eco-systems if a Surface phone is not released or is released and is a dud, it will be between Apple and Samsung and of the two watches I prefer the design of the Apple watch but if it does not have GPS I might lean towards Samsung as a really like their Note phones.
When Apple advertises on huge billboards and massive TV and print ad campaigns, "Shot on iPhone 6 & 6s", then yeah, I'm pretty sure the camera is a significant feature for people to buy an iPhone.
I'm not going to get into compairing Apple with the mid-90s and what they're doing today, because it's not really the same. Most of Apple's models were software bundle distinction. Suffice it to say, the while GPS is not necessarily an expensive feature, it's not just GPS, but the additional package that includes GPS. There's a cost to not only the additional components, but also to the engineering, R&D to support it.
The fact is Apple already has a watch they can sell at a certain price point, with a cut off on how much they add to it, before they exceed the margins they hope to achieve. So why not price it accordingly, and then for those who want the added features that the average person is not likely to use, bundle them in a separate product and charge more.
The Watch already has three tiers, a Sport (which is nothing of the kind), a regular watch, and the Edition. Each defined by their appearance. How is it confusing to bundle actual sport related features into a model that is physically different-looking from the other watches, and label it "Sport"? That's what they should have done. But no, "Sport" now means cheap. So they're going to have to come up with a different approach, which is likely the same method they have been distinguishing the 3-4 iPhone models they sell at any one time.
Agree with it or not, limiting features on a device to sell it for less, and adding them to sell it for more, is not going to confuse anyone within reason, and it's going to help Apple expand their customer base, especially for a product that seems to lack significant interest from the public to invest, at least until they have the chance to see how useful it can be in their lives. Do they do this forever? Probably not. But in the beginning it doesn't matter for most average consumers -- all they know is that one model costs less than another and they can afford the risk to try it out. If Apple does their job right, they make both types of customers happy in delineating what they're paying for. Most people don't need a GPS, or LTE, or "water-proofing" above what the base model does, or any of the new features being rolled out with the next watch. All they need is a chance to use the watch for a price they can reasonably afford, that performs a little better than the gen 1 watch to decide if they want such a device in their lives at all.
Watch2 seems like the one I've been waiting for...I'm glad I stick to my rule of purchasing an Apple product only when its in second-gen guise or higher.
I always wished they would make more of a "band" fitness model, and a full "smart watch" version. The way they implemented the "Sport Edition" leads me to believe that that is not the intent though - however if they do release a fitness band I would be much more inclined to buy that!
Congrats on your full marathon. I have yet to do an official run of that length.
What was your battery generally looking like before and after runs? I would say that gps with screen off generally drains about 10-15% an hour IME, but that is through third party apps as I do not have a phone. Since I generally only have time to run in the evenings I am starting a run at something like 50%, maybe as high as 65% some days. It would still probably be fine.
I think, at the end of the day, I would much rather my watch just die on me than have to either worry about my phone or worry about micromanaging my phone battery. I'll also mention that I absolutely hate running with a 6s plus for anything longer than about half an hour. I have a flip pelt to hold the phone but its just no fun. I've been stealing my son's SE for runs because it is just so much more convenient.
[doublepost=1470685820][/doublepost]
I made a decent (IMO) example of how upgrades might work with the watch. Simply have the user end up paying more than 50% of the device by the time it needs be returned. This already isn't a huge setback considering the over 12 month lifecycle these devices have.
I am simply stating that I see it as a boon for Apple to maybe cut profit on a device that they want to overtake the market. As strong as used device sales are, that market is declining as well due to saturation, reflected in trade values everywhere, including Apple. I think Apple (and other manufacturers) are going to see a decline in phone hardware sales (and they already have) just byvirtue of this saturation. They've helped create a new market segment with the watch. Time to give people reason to have one. You have people TODAY who ten year ago said they would never need a smartphone; now it is ubiquitous in all of our lives. Apple achieved much of that through contract and subsidy agreements from the carriers. Time to get the Apple watch where the iPhone is.
I'd love all of those things myself, but I do not think it is currently a feasible thing to expect gps and lte all in the same form factor and have a usable battery life. I'd pick running functionality over the LTE, personally.
Not necessarily. The Apple Watch is evolving. You cannot expect to have every possible available feature. The Gen 1 Watch does a lot of things well, but There is no way the Gen 1 Watch would survive with GPS coupled with the Heart rate monitor with the current 18 hour battery life. The S1 Chip with a 28 NM is not nearly powerful enough to handle these features. With the S2 Chip and a stronger battery, other features will be probable.