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.
How could Apple legitimately improve watchOS?
- Thread starter Aluminum213
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is that the next watch will be twice as fast as the current watch with at least the same battery life. Moores law.
All modern OS's are designed to use up as much as possible. Unused RAM is wasted RAM. Your screenshot isn't even using a lot at that particular moment. Less than 50% actually active of what's shown. It's also strange your app only shows a total of 265.23MB when the Apple Watch actually has 512MB of RAM.
226.47 used between various things at some point.
116.53 inactive + 29.05 never used yet (available).
That's 145.58 between inactive and available vs 109.94 still active (when you minus inactive from active.) 145.58 is not a lot out of what it actually has (512)
All modern OS's will keep things in "Inactive" in case it needs to access it again but will be removed once something else comes along and needs that space.
There are definitely no issues of RAM running out quite yet for what watchOS does currently and for possible future feature additions.
Once more app developer start put 3rd party app, and data in AW, memory will be gone fast. 512MB is not enough, specially with single CPU S1, memory should never been use up since some could be use for cache.
Check my pics and math again, it is showing around 512MB.
You're right that it shows around 512. For some reason I counted wired as the total that it was displaying.
Other points still stand though. Modern OS's are designed to use up RAM and not leave much unused. So many people freaked out with Yosemite when they saw RAM was being used, when it actually isn't all tied up or isn't OS X being a resource hog. It leaves things in RAM as long as it can incase you need it again, but will boot the oldest unused files out when space is needed for something new. So it still has plenty to work with. Remember the Apple Watch doesn't multitask like a Mac or iPhone or iPad.
Will a Watch 2 have 1GB? Could be likely, but the current Apple Watch isn't in any RAM danger yet. An iPhone 4s has the same 512MB and can run iOS 9 which is easily 10x heavier and more complex. So I'm sure the S1 chip in the Watch (which is nearly identical to a 4s iPhone in power) can handle the much, much lighter watchOS and whatever watchOS 3 throws at it.
I would agreed with you if S1 is a dual core cpu, for a single core cpu to run "swiftly" will require more memory allow app to more freely use, so when go back and fore between different AW app, previous open app and previous open data does not have to be re-open again. Yes, it does not support multi-tasking, but it sure could support faster re-activation of previous opened app.
There is different between running good enough but still slow vs lighting fast, and we deserved a lightning fast Apple Watch for the money we are paying.
I don't want my computer to be just running good enough, I want it to be the fastest, if I pay the $$$$$$$$; and Apple certainly could at least give us more memory or a dual core cpu.
Last edited:
I don't think doubling ram will suddenly make it lightning fast as you think it would. The major bottleneck of the watch is talking back n forth to the phone. RAM doesn't solve having to update what the temperature outside is when checking again 20 minutes after you last looked. The reason it does need to update again so soon is because the watch doesn't constantly update in the background, to save battery. It works like Fetching email every 15-30 minutes instead of Push.
I'm not arguing against having more RAM, like I said whenever Apple Watch 2 comes it will likely have more. I just don't think RAM is of any issue yet and probably won't be of any concern until watchOS 4 a year and a half from now. watchOS is pretty basic and simple, it's not even close to as complex as iOS. Apps on the watch are extremely simple and small and often rely on the iPhone more than the watch itself.
But to get back on topic and actually talk about watchOS improvements. The news of them actually working on new watch faces which I'm positive we'll see in watchOS 3 this fall. I've also heard rumours that they are working on a low power always on type feature to show the time. If true this will also probably be a main feature of watchOS 3. These two things alone would make watchOS 3 good for me, anything else would be bonus.
My point is not necessary about making watch faster with current os capability, it is about having more ram would allow Apple to open more local API capability for 3rd party developer. I want most of my 3rd party app and recent data 3rd party app used also stored in AW, not only in iPhone, so it could be pull up faster, and I want faster multi-app switching capability.
I don't want my 5+ most frequently use app to delay after 1st initial open, regardless how complicate they are, and how much graphic each one has.
New watch face is good, but low power mode will be awesome. They will have to figure out a way to minimize organic material degradation. I know OLED has fairly long life time, but an always on display will accelerate end of life significant faster.
Last edited:
I wouldn't blame developers. Blame Apple.
The watch, when it first came out, was hugely limited. Apps had to run from a phone and there was no access to many of the components of the watch. This killed a lot of momentum which may've been gained due to the launch of the watch.
Then watchOS 2 comes out with native apps, but this requires a large revamp if you've already made a non-native app. You basically have to write a whole new mini app.
Now, combine this with a total lack of any useful app discovery on Apple's end (no top charts, no way to filter watch-compatible apps in the App Store, no initiatives like free app of the week) and no way to charge extra for an Apple Watch app and you can see why developers may be ambivalent towards the platform. Why waste hours and hours creating a watch app that targets a small subset of iPhone users, when you could concentrate on updating and monetising your iPhone app or creating new iPhone apps which will reach tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions more people?
It may be viable for large developers, but for independent ones it just doesn't make financial sense until the Apple Watch becomes so popular it would be detrimental to their business not to have one.
I love my watch, and I enjoy creating apps as a small hobby on the side. But I'm not going to plough resources into creating watch apps unless Apple give watch developers a bit more support.
Install the NY Times and News360 apps on the AW and tell me whether money or developer willpower makes the difference between the two.
1. Speed.
2. Speed.
And, last but not least:
3. Speed.
If you just play with some apps, it seems fast and smooth. But if you are actually using it on a daily basis, it starts to lag randomly. Siri launches too slow to get the commands, apps open so slow, that it is actually faster for me to get the iPhone from my pocket…
When 1, 2 and 3 are covered, I would gladly welcome some more faces.
2. Speed.
And, last but not least:
3. Speed.
If you just play with some apps, it seems fast and smooth. But if you are actually using it on a daily basis, it starts to lag randomly. Siri launches too slow to get the commands, apps open so slow, that it is actually faster for me to get the iPhone from my pocket…
When 1, 2 and 3 are covered, I would gladly welcome some more faces.
I don't disagree that increased speed would be great, but I have learned to value AW more as a timepiece and auxiliary notification platform than just about anything else. Perhaps that's because there is no "anything else" in any meaningful sense, but I don't think so. For me, this is a complement to my phone, not a small but similarly capable phone.
I really look forward to some new, creative watch faces.
I'm going with
1) CPU - A7 at 520Mhz
2) Software optimizations (many apps are quite speedy)
3) Limited bandwidth of the Bluetooth connection.
What specific part of CPU is limitation, ........? (like to see dual core, but more memory could help)
What specific thing need to optimize in SW? (no issue for me)
What specific issue limited BT? (no issue for me)
Something I would like to see is "trusted devices". If I am wearing my watch and am within a certain distance from my phone, I would like to not have to enter a password.
I think it's mostly hardware, but more variety in watch faces would be really really helpful.
They should open that up to third party developers, even if it's a select list of third-party developers.
on the hardware side, I'd like a watch that looks more like a wrist bracelet so I could wear the Apple watch with another watch without looking like a fool (which I do).
They should open that up to third party developers, even if it's a select list of third-party developers.
on the hardware side, I'd like a watch that looks more like a wrist bracelet so I could wear the Apple watch with another watch without looking like a fool (which I do).
What about the annoying thing with email where is says we must view this message on our iPhone to read the whole email?