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.
Five Days Until the Apple Watch Series 11: All the Rumors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am waiting to go back to the S11 from the AWU 2. The AW lost the fight against my mechanical watches. An AW, especially the AWU, looks ridiculous combined with a more formal work outfit. Therefore, I use it only for sports and sleep tracking. This is something that the S11 will be able to handle without being so clunky.
Wouldn’t 5G use more battery during the day vs. LTE? Other than faster software updates, why is 5G needed on an AW?
Upgraded from a series 6 to 10 last year, but only because I seriously damaged the screen. Not even thinking about the 11.
I doubt the watch will allow for cellular updates, even on 5G. It uses too much battery.
If you want to speed them up, turn off bluetooth and it will download the update over WiFi. The watch always defaults to BT, for power-saving reasons, no matter how slow.
You either take a very long shower or the watch has a very fast charge time!
Yes
Other than being able to brag that it's 5G, I'm not sure. I doubt you'll be streaming quality video from or to your watch, or do anything that needs the extra speed. But it will distinguish the new model from old models, so there's that. (if that's important to you).
There is a lower power, low/medium data rate signal as part of the 5G spec. That is likely the biggest benefit to supporting it.
No, that is one benefit of the 5G spec. It has a lower power mode designed for devices like this.
The lower power mode would be great for streaming/downloading music, and sending data back for analysis.
Yes, that does make a lot more sense than just "5G. = faster". Anything that makes the watch more power efficient is a good thing, given the battery capacity.
And in comparison Google increased Battery Life each time on the last two iterations of the Pixel Watch.
Apple has the same number since 10 iterations..
This is the only reason why I would upgrade from my S9.
Apple has the same number since 10 iterations..
This is the only reason why I would upgrade from my S9.
To be fair, it seems battery life actually does increase in every new model. For some reason though, Apple would rather keep its "all day battery" branding and actually changes how they test each watch model's battery. You can see this on the Apple Watch Model Comparison site, where each model has a different footnote next to their "Up to 18 hours" label that leads to different tests. This Youtube video kinda does a simple baseline test for it, with this bar graph at the end showing his results:
Same tbh. After years of being tracked 24/7 day in day out, trying out polar, Garmin etc. a while ago I just said forget it. I'll use it for calories burnt in a workout and that's that. Mechanicals are back on my wrist and I am very happy. It's freeing, and I don't miss all the STATS. I know how I slept. I know when I'm tired etc. just tell me how much I burned doing my stupid little run then I'll have a shower.
5G by itself won't be a big deal, although I do still welcome it. As Alan Wynn pointed out above, it doesn't necessarily use more power. I'm glad they are moving to the Red Cap Chip. It's still unclear to me if the 5G watch modems will be more power efficient than the LTE ones. It's certainly possible they are, but it's unlikely that they will be (much) more power inefficient.
The other benefit from the 5G chip is that LTE networks are scheduled to be deprecated by 2030 (timelines can change for sure) and even if they aren't completely shut off, they will be reduced and you'll get much worse coverage on an LTE only chip.
The other thing to point out is that this appears to be the first time in a long time that Apple has changed the modem in the Apple Watch. They added some cellular channels a few years back, but the most recent one they added (for T Mo with is the carrier I use & keep track of) is Band 66. It made a big difference where I live. They still dont' support Band 71, which is T Mobiles primary long distance band. If the new modem supports that, T Mobile customers should get better cellular connectivity from their watches, particularly in more rural areas (precisely where a lot of people like to exercise). I'm sure there are equivalent bands for Verizon & ATT in the US, and likely similar for international carriers as well.
For me, a 5G modem with more cellular bands will be the biggest watch change in years. It might even be enough to move me over to an Ultra if they don't offer it on the 11. I don't really like the styling or weight of the ultra as much as the 10, but increased cellular coverage and potentially better battery life when on cellular would be fantastic.
The other benefit from the 5G chip is that LTE networks are scheduled to be deprecated by 2030 (timelines can change for sure) and even if they aren't completely shut off, they will be reduced and you'll get much worse coverage on an LTE only chip.
The other thing to point out is that this appears to be the first time in a long time that Apple has changed the modem in the Apple Watch. They added some cellular channels a few years back, but the most recent one they added (for T Mo with is the carrier I use & keep track of) is Band 66. It made a big difference where I live. They still dont' support Band 71, which is T Mobiles primary long distance band. If the new modem supports that, T Mobile customers should get better cellular connectivity from their watches, particularly in more rural areas (precisely where a lot of people like to exercise). I'm sure there are equivalent bands for Verizon & ATT in the US, and likely similar for international carriers as well.
For me, a 5G modem with more cellular bands will be the biggest watch change in years. It might even be enough to move me over to an Ultra if they don't offer it on the 11. I don't really like the styling or weight of the ultra as much as the 10, but increased cellular coverage and potentially better battery life when on cellular would be fantastic.
This might be slightly ot, but when you say "standard 5G speeds are insufficient" I'm curious about what speeds you are getting, and about conditions ( signal strength, network load etc) when you did the updates (and ofc the size of the updates) because these can significantly impact your experience duh. Not o mention if you used the update download as a bancmark and are amongst those whio force updates as soon as the updates go live you might have been struck by loads on apples servers/cdn rather than the 5G part of the equation. I'm not saying any of this to defend Apple and/or your cell provider, I just felt the need to point out that poor 5G performance often can be caused by thin other then the 5G hip and the antenna. And as I said updates might not be the ideal benchmark for anything because of the possible CDN/server limitation (you can't build/contract capacity for the peaks, ask any beancounter
). And yes I am fun at parties until someone says something that makes me start to think about what's being said, this is often limited to things that have a technical component to them)
Updates take forever on the watch because the phone downloads them first (this part isn't the issue) and then sends them to the watch via Bluetooth.This might be slightly ot, but when you say "standard 5G speeds are insufficient" I'm curious about what speeds you are getting, and about conditions ( signal strength, network load etc) when you did the updates (and ofc the size of the updates) because these can significantly impact your experience duh. Not o mention if you used the update download as a bancmark and are amongst those whio force updates as soon as the updates go live you might have been struck by loads on apples servers/cdn rather than the 5G part of the equation. I'm not saying any of this to defend Apple and/or your cell provider, I just felt the need to point out that poor 5G performance often can be caused by thin other then the 5G hip and the antenna. And as I said updates might not be the ideal benchmark for anything because of the possible CDN/server limitation (you can't build/contract capacity for the peaks, ask any beancounter
I have no issue with the 5G speeds on my phone. I can watch YouTube videos at 2160p with no issues whatsoever. I get the iOS updates with no issues whatsoever.
I'm strictly taking issue with people out there, whoever it is, that says I should be happy with 5G RedCap speeds on my watch because I don't need standard 5G speeds on my watch. Who are they to decide what I need?
Give me regular 5G speeds and if they're too fast for my needs then so be it. But don't create a crippled 5G standard and limit me to it.
To be fair, Apple didn't create this standard, one of the Wireless standards groups (3GPP) did, and it should be plenty fast to allow for your hypothetical situation. RedCap is meant for devices like wearables and IoT devices that don't need super fast internet, but the RedCap speeds still have a top end speed of between 80-150 Mbps, which should handle any downloads you want with ease (should apple ever allow direct downloads). This speed s ,such faster than I have ever seen able to see on the watch, even over Wifi, so I suspect that there are other limiting factors at play, aside from just the top end Modem Speed. But implementing a full 5G modem into the Apple Watch would make battery life ridiculoulsly short anytime it was running on cellular, although you could get super-fast downloads.
I'm not saying that you should be happy with it, but I am happy with that tradeoff and I suspect that most users are as well. Whether or not you are ever able to download the updates directly to your watch is a different question, but I suspect that won't be happening any time soon, regardless of what 5G implementation Apple uses with the watch.
I have no idea, but I am not sure I would use the wort “crippled” with it. Watches/wareables/IoT devices seem to be exactly its intended use: more efficient bandwidth delivery.
Someone on here earlier asked why would anyone want 5G on a watch, and the answer was it allowed more efficient bandwidth. I have no idea if that is what Apple has delivered, but I am not sure I would care one way or another, if I can make phone calls and stream music efficiently.
What is your concern?
My concern is getting a sub-optimal experience. Apple was the first (to my knowledge) to bring a 64-bit CPU to a smartphone. Smartphones got the same treatment as computers. Now I feel the same should have been done with the Apple Watch. Give it the same 5G experience as Smartphones, even if it seems "a bit much" at the present time. It's better to be future-proof. I don't know if RedCap is the way to do that.
Every design choice is a trade off. Apple could design a watch with full 5G mm wave support, but battery life would take a major hit. Right now, doing anything moderately taxing on the LTE watch really impacts the battery. I'd be happy if they choose the more power efficient RedCap chip for the watch.
For perspective, eero, the amazon company that sells routers is coming out with a RedCap modem later this year designed as a backup for your entire house's internet during outages of your main provider. If a RedCap modem is able to satisfy an entire household's internet usage at the same time, I'm pretty sure that it's fast enough to support anything I could possibly want to do on my watch.
Great. One new digital watch face that I don't like for the watch I have (Series 10). One new digital watch face that I like but can't get for the Ultra. Can't wait to for next year when we'll get a total of 1-2 more digital watch faces that will undoubtedly disappoint me.