How long before the watch gets a camera?

[44267547]

Just to be clear - I have NO VIEWS on adding a camera. I could care less. I just think that eventually there will be a need to incorporate more and more functionality into the watch or a device like it.

I understand you’re saying you don’t have any views on adding a camera, but what specifically leads you to believe there needs to be a reason to incorporate it? Just for the sake of added functionality? Just Because additional functionality is added to the Apple Watch, doesn't make the device any more useful or a feature that is absolutely necessary either.
[doublepost=1520580161][/doublepost]

Yeah it will need a camera, once the phone/data radio has been fully established as standalone and primary more. Same as you need a camera on your iPhone..

I don’t necessarily think it needs a camera. And I don’t think your comparison to an iPhone camera an Apple Watch camera are appropriate either. The technology and hardware will be completely two different entities for both devices.

 

[Shirasaki]

Please tell us how “FaceTime integration” solves the issues of privacy, awkward arm positions, tiny screen size, and everything else I’ve already written about.

Please. You’re such a genius.

I would LOVE to see his practical product of a camera-enabled Apple Watch blueprint and some demo use case. This product should be more than enough to pursuade we all commenters who rejects the watch camera idea.

 

[rafark]

Please tell us how “FaceTime integration” solves the issues of privacy, awkward arm positions, tiny screen size, and everything else I’ve already written about.

Please. You’re such a genius.

There are some people you just can't have a decent debate with. There's clearly a difference between the ones who create and the ones who don't.

I'm not answering any further as this is the second insult I've been the target of in this thread. I can play as well but it's not worth it.

 

[44267547]

I would LOVE to see his practical product of a camera-enabled Apple Watch blueprint and some demo use case. This product should be more than enough to pursuade we all commenters who rejects the watch camera idea.

And the reality is, none of us in here are Apple engineers and we don’t know the hardware technical requirements to even implement a camera on the Apple Watch even if somebody wanted to see it. There is so much technology Incorporated in the Apple Watch, I question how use it would even serve. Most purchase the Apple Watch strictly for the communication purposes and fitness capabilities. That’s where I think Apple exceeds and Will continue to build on the fitness aspect, where it matters most, not subtleties like a camera.

 

[Osamede]

I understand you’re saying you don’t have any views on adding a camera, but what specifically leads you to believe there needs to be a reason to incorporate it? Just for the sake of added functionality? Just Because additional functionality is added to the Apple Watch, doesn't make the device any more useful or a feature that is absolutely necessary either.
[doublepost=1520580161][/doublepost]

I don’t necessarily think it needs a camera. And I don’t think your comparison to an iPhone camera an Apple Watch camera are appropriate either. The technology and hardware will be completely two different entities for both devices.

No sugar they will be different - see my previous post on Apple's investment in a company that makes a new type of camera sensor....

 

[danny842003]

No sugar they will be different - see my previous post on Apple's investment in a company that makes a new type of camera sensor....

But a different sensor doesn’t make a camera on a watch any more useful.

 

[44267547]

see my previous post on Apple's investment in a company that makes a new type of camera sensor....

Actually, I already took the liberty and read your previous post regarding Invisage. And the the acquisition appears it won’t contribute anything to the Apple Watch or even remotely mentions the Apple Watch in the article about the acquisition . Specifically, it looks like it could be related to Face ID and sensors and how the camera could be implemented differently over the years. The following quotes listed below from the article about the acquisition with Invisage. Which blatantly is obvious this companies focus has nothing to do with the Apple Watch and More related to iiPhone with it’s about the maturity with Face ID with this company.

Hence:

“Apple has picked up InVisage Technologies, a startup that develops solutions to improve imaging capabilities on space-constrained devices, like smartphones.”

“There is an obvious benefit here to consumers being able to take better pictures with their smartphones; and, if you consider the ongoing debate about which phone really does have the best camera, it’s clear that this is a deal maker and deal breaker in the smartphone market.“

“InVisage points out that QuantumFilm’s tech can be used in IoT applications and to help with “authentication, autonomy, and augmented or virtual reality” — all areas that Apple is already doing some interesting work in with innovations like FaceID and ARKit, and will continue to be developing in the future.”


https://beta.techcrunch.com/2017/11...imaging-sensor-startup-invisage-technologies/

 

[BlankStar]

I hope they won't ever do that. I can't imagine me walking around facetiming with my Apple Watch... I don't use it for calls neither cause the audio sucks monkeyballs and it's way too silent.

Leave the camera and use the space for more battery!

 

[Osamede]

Camera on your wrist has infinite uses. Smaller thinner sensor is required to get a camera in a smaller space and also to meet lower power consumption requirements.

It’s not a “watch” - it’s the new “iphone”. Get some imagination...

 

[Shirasaki]

Camera on your wrist has infinite uses. Smaller thinner sensor is required to get a camera in a smaller space and also to meet lower power consumption requirements.

It’s not a “watch” - it’s the new “iphone”. Get some imagination...

Why we need a miniature iPhone when we have a full-function iPhone? What is the next step? Replying Macrumors forum posts using Apple Watch? Watching Youtube video? One reason Apple does not implement two-finger zoom in is that fingers will obstruct the display.
I agree that Apple may add some sort of image capture device that can be used for Face ID. But for an actual camera, I doubt it.

 

[Julien]

Would LOVE to see more health/fitness monitoring WAY before a (useless to me) camera.

 

[Osamede]

Why we need a miniature iPhone when we have a full-function iPhone? What is the next step? Replying Macrumors forum posts using Apple Watch? Watching Youtube video? One reason Apple does not implement two-finger zoom in is that fingers will obstruct the display.
I agree that Apple may add some sort of image capture device that can be used for Face ID. But for an actual camera, I doubt it.

Is your iPhone really a "phone" - or is that a metaphor that the industry used to help you relate to what is really a micro computer.

Now tell me why you "need" a microcomputer in your pocket, when you have a "full function" computer on your desk, complete with a huge screen, real full-size keyboard, and better camera.

Go think again about that "watch" - it's not merely a watch. Apple did not get into this to make accessories that compete with Fitbit or whatever.

Yes, it will have a camera. All in good time. It's not capable yet. But it will be, when other things get in place.

 

[Endorphine88]

This whole thread's point was to "dream" a little guys, not to argue. I don't care about how plausible it is at this point in time and whether or not it is "necessary" to add a camera to the watch. Of course it's not. I just remember a time when I had to sit my butt down in front of a computer that was chunky and bulky and slow and that was my only way to Skype with someone and the connections sucked most of the time. We've come a very very long way in a very short amount of time. I may be watching way too many sci-fi movies, but I think that a watch-like device that does everything your current "phone" does is possible. I think integrating a camera is definitely a logical step at some point. You don't agree? That's OK. Don't argue. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to forcing it on others.

 

[BarracksSi]

There are some people you just can't have a decent debate with. There's clearly a difference between the ones who create and the ones who don't.

I'm not answering any further as this is the second insult I've been the target of in this thread. I can play as well but it's not worth it.

That’s a lot of words to say, “No.”
[doublepost=1520611222][/doublepost]

This whole thread's point was to "dream" a little guys, not to argue. I don't care about how plausible it is at this point in time and whether or not it is "necessary" to add a camera to the watch. Of course it's not. I just remember a time when I had to sit my butt down in front of a computer that was chunky and bulky and slow and that was my only way to Skype with someone and the connections sucked most of the time. We've come a very very long way in a very short amount of time. I may be watching way too many sci-fi movies, but I think that a watch-like device that does everything your current "phone" does is possible. I think integrating a camera is definitely a logical step at some point. You don't agree? That's OK. Don't argue. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to forcing it on others.

The point is --

This isn't a new question. It's already an old, beat-to-death question -- literally "beat to death" because the watches that tried it are all dead and gone.

You're about five years late to the party. Just asking it implies not knowing any smartwatch history.

How do you propose making the display large enough to see someone's face? Should it project its image in mid-air? Forget that -- I don't need anyone to see who I'm talking to. I don't even want a magic hologram display for regular tasks like checking my schedule or writing texts.

"How long before the watch gets a camera?" should be re-worded as, "Can Apple make a smartwatch camera that's any better than all the others that failed?" The answer, again, is "no", because the wrist is just not a good place for a camera. It doesn't matter how much processing power gets thrown at it or how it "integrates into Apple services" (what a crock that is) -- it would still have to be used on the wrist.

 

[44267547]

I think integrating a camera is definitely a logical step at some point. You don't agree? That's OK. Don't argue. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to forcing it on others.

Part of discussion can also be arguments. As long as arguments are on topic and respectful, there is nothing wrong with that. Others have disagreed with you respectively throughout this thread, but it doesn’t mean that somebody can interject an argument because they don’t share your view point either.

But I also don’t believe A camera will be something related to an Apple Watch in the future, as I think Apple is more health oriented with sensors and other technology versus something like a camera that probably doesn’t have much usefulness for reasons mentioned prior.

 

[iamasmith]

Hoping it actually never happens and I believe it possibly might never happen with the watch in the current format.

1. You get the Google Glass response - banned from many locations etc. and it would be a PITA if you suddenly found the watch banned from the pool for your exercise because it could take pictures (ignoring cinema etc.) but you get the point.
2. It's an iPhone companion at the moment for many things but I DO lament not having the phone sometimes when I'm running and I want a quick photo of something I've spotted - but not enough to carry the phone as well.
3. That's valuable real estate for battery capacity and polishing more common use functionality. In most situations the phone will be available and it's already committed to high quality photos.

You never know though - product managers in California do really, really odd things sometimes

 

[boston04and07]

Personally I’d have no need for a regular camera on the watch, but what I would love is for Face ID to come to the watch. My work email requires an alphanumeric passcode, which of course we can’t enter on the watch. Therefore, I need my iPhone to unlock the watch, which is pretty irritating. It’s why I haven’t bothered getting the cellular version - the fact that I need my iPhone with me all the time anyway in case the watch gets locked.

Plus, it would just be way more secure than having a four digit passcode anyway. I read a rumor it could be coming to the series 4. If it does I’d definitely upgrade my series 2.

Edit: here’s where I read that https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2018/03/26/apple-watch-4-could-feature-face-id/

 

[danny842003]

Personally I’d have no need for a regular camera on the watch, but what I would love is for Face ID to come to the watch. My work email requires an alphanumeric passcode, which of course we can’t enter on the watch. Therefore, I need my iPhone to unlock the watch, which is pretty irritating. It’s why I haven’t bothered getting the cellular version - the fact that I need my iPhone with me all the time anyway in case the watch gets locked.

Plus, it would just be way more secure than having a four digit passcode anyway. I read a rumor it could be coming to the series 4. If it does I’d definitely upgrade my series 2.

Edit: here’s where I read that https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2018/03/26/apple-watch-4-could-feature-face-id/

I hope it’s a cellular only feature. No need to waste space on the GPS only model.

 

[boston04and07]

I hope it’s a cellular only feature. No need to waste space on the GPS only model.

Yeah, that would make sense. It’d be one extra thing to make it a more independent device instead of something that’s more of an iPhone accessory.

 

[44267547]

Personally I’d have no need for a regular camera on the watch, but what I would love is for Face ID to come to the watch. My work email requires an alphanumeric passcode, which of course we can’t enter on the watch. Therefore, I need my iPhone to unlock the watch, which is pretty irritating. It’s why I haven’t bothered getting the cellular version - the fact that I need my iPhone with me all the time anyway in case the watch gets locked.

Plus, it would just be way more secure than having a four digit passcode anyway. I read a rumor it could be coming to the series 4. If it does I’d definitely upgrade my series 2.

Edit: here’s where I read that https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2018/03/26/apple-watch-4-could-feature-face-id/

I read that article from Forbes you listed, not to be dismissive, but that’s a bogus article. There isn’t going to be a FaceTime camera for the Series 4 Apple Watch. And that article also mentions it was possibly a patent for “Face ID” in the future, which might start out as a selfie camera. The idea is that the camera is supposed to be more useful for unlocking the Apple Watch with the camera or Apple Pay. Apple Pay works perfectly fine as it is now without the use of the camera.

That all said, the most reliable rumor (And the rarity of an Apple Watch rumor which does not happen very often) actually surfaced for the Apple Watch Series 4 last week was from the most reliable Apple insider Ming Kuo, which stated that the Series 4 is to have a 15% larger display, extended battery life and additional health sensors. I also suspect a slight redesign with the casing and maybe bands that take advantage of the diagnostic port.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/27/apple-watch-series-4-redesign-rumor/amp/

 

[Michael CM1]

I don't think it's that necessary or even practical right now. The first problem is Apple isn't going to want to be behind a new wave of pervs using said camera for perv reasons. Yes, they can use phones, but that's a little more noticeable.

Also, most people who own a watch own a smartphone because you had to before the Series 3. Exactly how many people are using the Series 3 cellular models away from their phone when they all of a sudden need a photo? I'm willing to bet it's not many. That's a relatively large amount of hardware to stick inside the current Apple Watch case, which means less room for a battery or circuitry.

 

[Nell]

If I’m out and about without my phone it’s because I’ve forgotten to put it in my pocket before leaving home. I have an LTE Watch precisely because I don’t want to have to go back for my phone when that happens. Clearly I’m just as likely to see something I want to photograph those days but I really don’t want a camera on my watch because I don’t see a way to make that not creepy (plus no way to compose a picture carefully using something on my wrist and it’d almost certainly be an inferior camera as well as a huge battery drain).

 

[BarracksSi]

If I’m out and about without my phone it’s because I’ve forgotten to put it in my pocket before leaving home. I have an LTE Watch precisely because I don’t want to have to go back for my phone when that happens. Clearly I’m just as likely to see something I want to photograph those days but I really don’t want a camera on my watch because I don’t see a way to make that not creepy (plus no way to compose a picture carefully using something on my wrist and it’d almost certainly be an inferior camera as well as a huge battery drain).

See how conditioned we've become to having a camera on our person ALL THE TIME?

Diverging a bit (but I think this is relevant)...

Watch the audience at a social event, or concert, or publicity speech, or school play, or a sporting event. Look at how many phones are being held in the air. A news reporter posted a photo of the crowd at a UK royalty ceremony -- all you could see was the backs of smartphones, not the audience's faces. Last year's Tour de France started having problems with spectators crowding the course, trying to take selfies as the riders passed by in the background.

Remember when taking photos meant getting your camera out of the cabinet, making sure you had a roll or two of film, then carrying it on a strap around your neck? And then, because you only had maybe 36 shots available, being careful and specific about what you want to take a picture of?

Some bloggers have talked about putting away their phone cameras for once, spending time experiencing events instead of trying to document them. I've been working on doing the same thing, and it's great. When I go watch my cousin's dance team, I don't have to worry about whether I'm framing the stage correctly or screwing up the exposure -- I can just watch them and enjoy how awesome they are.

* One thing I've really begun to appreciate about the AW is how it keeps me connected to people without making me carry my phone in my hand all the time. The best examples for this are when I'm out shopping with my wife, having dinner with family and friends, and other times like these. Often, my phone isn't even on the table or in my hand -- it's in my pocket, or maybe my wife's purse. The phone is no longer a temptation for distraction.

My contention, then, is that the watch doesn't need to try to grow into a mini-micro-smartphone. It's great at doing just the basics, and it doesn't need anything more. Besides, on such a small screen, the UI won't get any better anyway.
[doublepost=1522678813][/doublepost]

I read that article from Forbes you listed, not to be dismissive, but that’s a bogus article. There isn’t going to be a FaceTime camera for the Series 4 Apple Watch. And that article also mentions it was possibly a patent for “Face ID” in the future, which might start out as a selfie camera. The idea is that the camera is supposed to be more useful for unlocking the Apple Watch with the camera or Apple Pay. Apple Pay works perfectly fine as it is now without the use of the camera.

Oh yes, exactly. I don't understand why they would write something like that unless they really don't know how Apple Pay works on the AW.

The Patently Apple post that the Forbes article links to tries to say (as Patently Apple usually does) that all of these features "are coming". If you've watched Apple's patents long enough, though, you'll realize that a good number of them are what I'd call defensive patents. Apple has an idea for a feature, so instead of just percolating it internally, they write a patent to call dibs on it, hoping to keep others from trying the same thing (kind of squatting on patents for their own product).

Also, just going by the patent drawings -- the sensor-laden bands look unnecessarily complex and probably wouldn't make it into actual production. "Hydration detection"? I can discern my hydration level from the color of my pee.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...s-to-analyze-sports-performance-and-more.html

Relevant to the idea of the camera, Patently Apple says this:

Face ID

Apple quietly mentions 'User Identification' only twice. They mention it once in their opening summary and again randomly thrown into patent point #21 without any explanation or even context. This is where it's important to note the architecture of the Apple Watch presented in patent FIG. 3 as our first patent figure to highlight.

Obviously this patent was filed before iPhone X's Face ID was made public and the history of this patent goes back to 2016 and so those preparing the text of this patent filing couldn't use Apple's marketing term Face ID. So it was hidden under 'user identification' and in another segment of the patent filing about the camera wherein it's noted that "a user to capture images of nearby objects in the environment, such as a bar code or QR code. In some examples, the camera can be disposed on the front surface of face member (e.g., to capture images of the user)" – with no reference to it being used for identification purposes.

Even though they keep it low key, the patent filing is certainly describing Face ID. Of course miniaturizing the components of their TrueDepth camera onto Apple Watch face isn't going to happen overnight. They may start off with a simple selfie camera, as noted at the top of our report, and then over time elevate it to Face ID.

Apple's patent application was filed back in Q3 2017. The engineers listed as the inventors include Mr. Lor, Apple Watch System Integrator; and Apple's Hardware Engineering Manager Mr. Nangia. Considering that this is a patent application, the timing of such a product to market is unknown at this time.

 

[Nell]

See how conditioned we've become to having a camera on our person ALL THE TIME?

Diverging a bit (but I think this is relevant)...

Watch the audience at a social event, or concert, or publicity speech, or school play, or a sporting event. Look at how many phones are being held in the air. A news reporter posted a photo of the crowd at a UK royalty ceremony -- all you could see was the backs of smartphones, not the audience's faces. Last year's Tour de France started having problems with spectators crowding the course, trying to take selfies as the riders passed by in the background.

This is not my relationship with the camera at all. I’m much more interested in the micro-drama than the big event. I’ll happily watch an event without getting my phone out but when I see a lost glove or a squashed cake or a pleasing shadow then my phone (or other camera) comes straight out.

I still work with film but for the day to day stuff it’s my phone all the way.

 

[Shirasaki]

See how conditioned we've become to having a camera on our person ALL THE TIME?

Diverging a bit (but I think this is relevant)...

Watch the audience at a social event, or concert, or publicity speech, or school play, or a sporting event. Look at how many phones are being held in the air. A news reporter posted a photo of the crowd at a UK royalty ceremony -- all you could see was the backs of smartphones, not the audience's faces. Last year's Tour de France started having problems with spectators crowding the course, trying to take selfies as the riders passed by in the background.

Remember when taking photos meant getting your camera out of the cabinet, making sure you had a roll or two of film, then carrying it on a strap around your neck? And then, because you only had maybe 36 shots available, being careful and specific about what you want to take a picture of?

Some bloggers have talked about putting away their phone cameras for once, spending time experiencing events instead of trying to document them. I've been working on doing the same thing, and it's great. When I go watch my cousin's dance team, I don't have to worry about whether I'm framing the stage correctly or screwing up the exposure -- I can just watch them and enjoy how awesome they are.

* One thing I've really begun to appreciate about the AW is how it keeps me connected to people without making me carry my phone in my hand all the time. The best examples for this are when I'm out shopping with my wife, having dinner with family and friends, and other times like these. Often, my phone isn't even on the table or in my hand -- it's in my pocket, or maybe my wife's purse. The phone is no longer a temptation for distraction.

My contention, then, is that the watch doesn't need to try to grow into a mini-micro-smartphone. It's great at doing just the basics, and it doesn't need anything more. Besides, on such a small screen, the UI won't get any better anyway.
[doublepost=1522678813][/doublepost]
Oh yes, exactly. I don't understand why they would write something like that unless they really don't know how Apple Pay works on the AW.

The Patently Apple post that the Forbes article links to tries to say (as Patently Apple usually does) that all of these features "are coming". If you've watched Apple's patents long enough, though, you'll realize that a good number of them are what I'd call defensive patents. Apple has an idea for a feature, so instead of just percolating it internally, they write a patent to call dibs on it, hoping to keep others from trying the same thing (kind of squatting on patents for their own product).

Also, just going by the patent drawings -- the sensor-laden bands look unnecessarily complex and probably wouldn't make it into actual production. "Hydration detection"? I can discern my hydration level from the color of my pee.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...s-to-analyze-sports-performance-and-more.html

Relevant to the idea of the camera, Patently Apple says this:

Not to mention 99% of those photos will never ever be opened a second time for most people. At the very least for me, I barely find any moment to intentionally browse my old photo for relieving memories purpose or something similar to that.