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.
Haptic Feedback Wrist Band Could Make for Thinner Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Jony made a good point about the battery-thickness trade-off, in relation to the iPhone, when the watch was first released:
"The best products are those where you have optimised each attribute while being very conscious of other parts of the product’s performance.” (Talking of performance, when the issue of the frequent need to recharge the iPhone is raised, he answers that it’s because it’s so light and thin that we use it so much and therefore deplete the battery. With a bigger battery it would be heavier, more cumbersome, less “compelling”.)"
https://www.ft.com/content/3ae35e46-c9a6-11e4-b2ef-00144feab7de
Strap will function with the watch computer then? So i can leave the watch computer at home and just wear the strap and still receive notifications?
Or is this just another dognle that Apple want me to buy so that now without the strap the watch computer just has to balance on my wrist or fall off it?
Or is this just another dognle that Apple want me to buy so that now without the strap the watch computer just has to balance on my wrist or fall off it?
While the watch is thick, part of that is negated where the curved back portion of watch (heart rate sensor) rests on the small indentation on the top of your wrist.
Aesthetically, it probably could stand to be a tad thinner. But given the power, battery life and display requirements, I'm we're at that point where technology can deliver at this miniature size.
Aesthetically, it probably could stand to be a tad thinner. But given the power, battery life and display requirements, I'm we're at that point where technology can deliver at this miniature size.
actually i meant without not with.
i'm just very drunk today.
how about a MacBook made of Bamboo then? I've got a chopping board made of Bamboo and its about the size of a 13" MacBook Pro retina.
Imagine scratches. you could just rub them away with sandpaper. Or just don't care about. So what if you get a scratch, its Bamboo!
( stuff inside will still be regular computer bits like it is today, still made of atoms, just the outside will be Bamboo )
i'm just very drunk today.
how about a MacBook made of Bamboo then? I've got a chopping board made of Bamboo and its about the size of a 13" MacBook Pro retina.
Imagine scratches. you could just rub them away with sandpaper. Or just don't care about. So what if you get a scratch, its Bamboo!
( stuff inside will still be regular computer bits like it is today, still made of atoms, just the outside will be Bamboo )
Have people been to local jewelry counter lately? I amazed when I hear people claim how big the AW is, then go to the local department store and see myriads of watches in the same price range that are probably close to twice the size of Apple's offerings.
It doesn't benefit consumers that Apple's bands are ridiculously overpriced. I got a third party Milanese loop band for about $14.99 that I absolutely love, without paying an arm and a leg.
Apply that argument to Apple's entire catalogue of products, and many of them (including several of the company's biggest successes) might have never come into being. Take the MacBook Air, for example:
'There are myriads of fat notebooks out there, some double the size of Apple's. So why should Apple try to make their notebooks thinner?'
It was precisely the quest for thinness, streamlining and ultra-portability that prompted the development of the MacBook Air. Whilst there were several factors behind the product's success, it is fair to say that - at the time of its release - the Air's dimensions were its unique selling point, and underpinned the product's critical acclaim and consumer uptake.
Side-note: as well as those thick watches in your local jewellery shop that you mentioned, you'll also find several thinner models. If you have a local swatch shop, you'll come across many slim watches - both mechanical and digital.
Last edited:
I think Apple may also need to redefine what the AW is.
Initially it was a fashion accessory which meant it needed some weight to feel like a premium watch.
But having pivoted to a primarily fitness device, perhaps it can lose some heft (only aluminum), slightly lower screen resolution and have longer battery. Garmin is killing it now with their Forerunner series watches. They're not as thick and have amazing battery life.
Initially it was a fashion accessory which meant it needed some weight to feel like a premium watch.
But having pivoted to a primarily fitness device, perhaps it can lose some heft (only aluminum), slightly lower screen resolution and have longer battery. Garmin is killing it now with their Forerunner series watches. They're not as thick and have amazing battery life.
It won't have all three. Unless you've traveled thirty years into the future and have already seen what new battery technologies will exist.
I'll just come and agree with others here...
This may add cost to the watch itself; hopefully cost of watch remains the same.
The cost for wristbands will go up - no doubts. And if the tech is locked behind a patent, then, yeah it means Apple gets lots of licensing fees or can lock users into their products and discourage 3rd party.
The wide range of wristbands is one of the appeals of the watch. Making that more expensive or limiting the options this way would be a bad thing.
Whether or not losing out on band options outweighs the benefits of a thinner watch is up to personal preference.
Apple has prioritized thinness over customer needs, so I could see this becoming a reality with the Series 3 next year.
This may add cost to the watch itself; hopefully cost of watch remains the same.
The cost for wristbands will go up - no doubts. And if the tech is locked behind a patent, then, yeah it means Apple gets lots of licensing fees or can lock users into their products and discourage 3rd party.
The wide range of wristbands is one of the appeals of the watch. Making that more expensive or limiting the options this way would be a bad thing.
Whether or not losing out on band options outweighs the benefits of a thinner watch is up to personal preference.
Apple has prioritized thinness over customer needs, so I could see this becoming a reality with the Series 3 next year.
And besides, I'm surprised (or maybe I shouldn't be) that you guys aren't seeing this as another preemptive patent strike.
This was filed back in 2013. Hope y'all noticed that.
Apple's done it many times before -- come up with an idea, possibly even making working prototypes in their lab, and then patenting it to prevent other companies from doing it (especially the much-hated "patent trolls" who don't actually make anything).
Yes, a haptic strap is a terrible idea, primarily because it would wipe out the easy customization that makes the AW so versatile for so many people. Given a choice between the current implementation of the AW versus a thinner, lighter watch that works ONLY with costlier, more complicated straps, the current version wins.
This was filed back in 2013. Hope y'all noticed that.
Apple's done it many times before -- come up with an idea, possibly even making working prototypes in their lab, and then patenting it to prevent other companies from doing it (especially the much-hated "patent trolls" who don't actually make anything).
Yes, a haptic strap is a terrible idea, primarily because it would wipe out the easy customization that makes the AW so versatile for so many people. Given a choice between the current implementation of the AW versus a thinner, lighter watch that works ONLY with costlier, more complicated straps, the current version wins.
I feel like Apple made the Series 2 thicker (while over-delivering on stated battery life), so that they can introduce LTE without cost to thickness and battery life.
I think this is very intriguing. It would increase the band usage, which could one day incorporate various sensors and monitors into the band itself, while thinning the watch and preserving battery life. This sounds difficult though.
Also it's hilarious to see people complain about this purely from the "I use third party bands so now I don't like this" point of view. Apple could use software and make every third party band incompatible if they wanted. They have zero reason to support non-Apple bands. Most likely, there still will be third party bands but they won't have the same function as the Apple bands - shocker.
Also it's hilarious to see people complain about this purely from the "I use third party bands so now I don't like this" point of view. Apple could use software and make every third party band incompatible if they wanted. They have zero reason to support non-Apple bands. Most likely, there still will be third party bands but they won't have the same function as the Apple bands - shocker.
I have some doubts this will happen, at least anytime soon. I remember early in development of the Watch Apple were investigating putting the heart rate sensor in the band but rejected it outright because it would severely limit 3rd party band options.
Maybe in another couple or few years, once everyone has one, they might start doing far-out stuff like this, but I think 3rd party accessories are so important to their Watch strategy currently that they won't be rushing to alienate a huge pool of potential Watch customers.
Maybe in another couple or few years, once everyone has one, they might start doing far-out stuff like this, but I think 3rd party accessories are so important to their Watch strategy currently that they won't be rushing to alienate a huge pool of potential Watch customers.
Resign? He needs to be fired. And sued. And arrested. And drawn and quartered. Then rehired so we can do it again after the next speculative article.
I think what he means is that when photographed alone it appears to be pretty thick because you don't have anything to compare it to. When it is on your wrist it doesn't feel like it's that thick. Sort of like how an ant photographed on a nickel would seem larger than an ant photographed on a dinner plate.
I do understand how some women or particularly petite men might find it thick, but it's really not much different from many other large men's watches in size. If they are working on making it thinner I hope they only do this to the 38mm and not the 42mm.
Software that requires certain things from the Apple bands to come in contact (so hardware too I guess) for boot-up or anything. I didn't mention hardware but anyone who actually thinks could have guessed that.
[doublepost=1482482997][/doublepost]
I would like a thinner 42mm. Hopefully their watch follows a two-year cycle - features, then thinness/look, then repeat - so if someone like you wants thicker, use the last thick year's model, when someone like me could use the last thin/redesign year's model.
just no USB-C ports please, I hate it when I have to hang dongles from my watch!
That would be anti-competitive and see Apple in a court case that they would lose. Third party watch band makers would probably make more money from the court case than from making watch bands.
Agreed, just a HDMI port would be better that can only do one thing.