Haptic Feedback Wrist Band Could Make for Thinner Apple Watch

[tevion]

Apple helped design and push USB-C. Your point is wrong.

I think the entire issue with your points is maybe you work for a third party watch strap maker... because third party watch strap makers mean nothing to Apple, and to think they do is stupidity at its finest. If Apple can enhance the user experience of the watch and straps while profiting, they will, and adding components to Apple Watch straps very likely does that. We don't know if the profit is there because we don't know apples numbers, but to claim anything as a deterrent to strap use, such as "Apple cares about third party strap makers/manufacturers and too tight of schedules/blah blah blah" again, is stupidity.

Mate ignore him, he's just clutching at straws now. Doesn't really know what he's talking about, it's like debating economics with a baboon.

 

[BarracksSi]

Come back to me in five years when your'e still wrong. Nah, let's say ten years. Give you a greater chance.
[doublepost=1482619558][/doublepost]Okay, let's walk through the post (copied from AppleInsider by MacRumors) and the patent as it was filed in December 2013 (NOT in June 2016 as Mikey Campbell at AppleInsider seemed to believe).

- It shows a watch-and-strap connection that bears no similarity to the pushbutton-slide mechanism that Apple released (patent claim #5 describes a connecting "pin").

- It describes the straps connecting "through a wired and/or wireless connection" (Detailed Description [0018]). The word "wired" appears a few other times in the filing.

- Requiring a connection from the watch head to a strap, whether by Bluetooth or Wifi or a wired socket, adds more complexity. A wired connection also reduces durability, both by the tiny electronic parts that need to press together just right and by opening a path for water intrusion.

- The document describes straps that would have to be less flexible, bulkier, more expensive to build, more expensive to sell, and more likely to fail than any strap Apple (or third parties) has shipped.

Not a single one of these points is more beneficial to Apple, Apple's suppliers, third-party makers, or users than what the Apple Watch is today. Every aspect of the patented idea is a worse solution. The AW would be a ******** product if it were made this way.

Sooooooo.......

How would it make sense? Any sense at all? How is this a good idea?

Doesn't the fact that Apple didn't use it in the Apple Watch they eventually shipped despite coming up with the idea sometime in 2013 say anything about how bad of an idea it was?

 

[clauzzz203]

So you think Apple does things for the consumers out of the goodness of its heart... and has no reason to capitalize on a legally-permissible temporarily-monopoly on watch straps...

I'm done. You don't know anything about business.

And you think it makes any sense at all for manufacturing, consumer relations, and third party support?

How?

Again, I ask, tell us how it makes sense to require more complicated hardware?

Apple does not give a **** about watch strap monopoly... no one buys them since they are low quality, with the exception of those who don't have the means to get an official band. And again, Apple has nothing to gain from this subsection of the population.

Tldr, it's not registering on the radar, it's not a part of the decision making discussion at their hq

 

[macTW]

Apple does not give a **** about watch strap monopoly... no one buys them since they are low quality, with the exception of those who don't have the means to get an official band. And again, Apple has nothing to gain from this subsection of the population.

Tldr, it's not registering on the radar, it's not a part of the decision making discussion at their hq

Completely wrong. The fact they produce them shows people buy them, first of all. Second, I didn't know you were apart of their decision making at hq, so you sit on the board? Last, Apple has everything to gain from any subsection of the population, if there is profit involved.

 

[BarracksSi]

Explain, then, how this over-three-year-old concept would create a better Watch today.

 

[wjw0111]

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.

I get that some people want a thinner watch, but for those that want some heft I hope it won't just be "last year's model". I'd be happy if they made a thinner sport/regular Watch, but kept a thicker Edition in line with current Edition pricing. I don't want to pay $10k+ for a smart watch, but would be happy paying $1-3k for something that feels substantial.

 

[adh328]

Let's be honest here - this device was far too thick from day 1. Series 2 was next-level thick, which considerably reduced the appeal of the design.

It is great that they are exploring how it can be made thinner. And for once it seems that the battery isn't going to have to suffer for that objective.

wait what lmao - series 2 is minimally bigger by less than a mm. dramatic much? lol