How long for a standalone watch

[exxxviii]

At least with the Apple watch your iPhone is in your pocket and you can always use that for some tasks. Imagine carrying around nothing but a cellular Apple watch and trying to do everything with it.

Right now, we must carry both phone and watch with Apple's design. So, we are at a two-device minimum. But imagine a world when you would not need the big brick of a phone on hand. That is the point of this discussion. If you wanted to, you could choose to leave your home with only your watch and still take a call or receive messages. You could also choose to choose to carry two devices in this future world: the watch plus something like an iPod Touch for Internet stuff and taking a call on a handheld device, but it would no longer be a requirement. We could pick, based on our lifestyle.

And for those who don't want a watch, Apple would still offer the legacy brick phones to people.

 

[Night Spring]

@Night Spring So because you own a headset already makes putting our phones in a watch and making our phones into arguably already obsolete iPods a great idea...? I'm not sure I'm interpreting you correctly, because it all sounds a bit off, really.
>snip<
I don't think most people would want to wear their phone on their wrist, have to have earplugs for talking on it, and an iPod in their pocket or bag for browsing Facebonk.

Please read post #25.

It's not about making the phone obsolete, it's about making the watch more useful. And people already have an iPhone in their pockets and bags, and apparently are wiling to wear a watch in addition to carrying the iPhone. So replace the iPhone with an iPod, and all we are talking about is adding a headset, which is a tiny gadget that adds very little bulk or weight. And many people already walk around with headphones/earphones for listening to music. So it's not as big a change as you are making it out to be.

 

[Brien]

Just like the iPhone/iPad, I foresee the Watch eventually gaining independence.

However, I think a couple key pieces need to fall into place first:

1 - eSIMs. No way is a nanoSIM going to fit into the Watch (well technically, it could, but at the expense of everything else).
2 - More efficient GPS/cellular chipsets. As it stands right now, GPS is still a battery killer - look at Garmin watches and you'll see how much worse the battery life gets with GPS enabled. Cellular chipsets are improving but still probably not at the levels Apple would want.

Once those two things get sorted out, we'll start to see Watches that don't need to be paired to a phone. IMO of course.

 

[Lennyvalentin]

It's not about making the phone obsolete, it's about making the watch more useful.

I've read the entire thread, and I'm simply disputing that this would make the watch more 'useful', because a watch is not really useful as a smart device on its own. Its screen is too small to digest more than even bite-sized information. You would be back at a dumbphone level of useage to a large extent or maybe even worse, because at least on dumbphones you could type messages reasonably efficiently on the hardware keypad using T9 for example, whereas you'd reasonably have to rely on dictation on a watch, and that's not always possible (in public, or maybe you have an odd dialect, speech impediment, unsupported native tongue, whatever.)

No real, genuine usefulness is gained by putting the phone parts into the watch, other than maybe for those few, odd people who just want a phone and not much else, and don't mind talking into their wrists when they speak on it. In just about every other situation we're either at status quo or worse with regards to today's implementation where a phone is a phone and a watch is a watch (and an ipod is an ipod, and headsets are headsets - just for completeness' sake. )

I don't think too many people would want just a phone today, and I don't think too many people would prefer having to buy several companion devices to gain back what they already have today, even if they already own a phone today, and a watch, and a headset too, because today the phone is the main, important device. You can manage without the watch or your headset. If you forget your headset at home and your watch-phone runs out of juice when you're out and about, well... You could always play Limbo on your iPod, right? That's about all you could do. Or listen poorly to music through the iPod's terrible built-in speaker.

It's a more fragile, fiddlier and decidedly not-better setup than today's. I don't see any credible advantages really...

 

[Armen]

imagine a world when you would not need the big brick of a phone on hand.

A smaller cellphone was more convenient to carry around back in the 1990's because of what we did with the phone, we talked on them.

As technology progressed our phones became pocket computers and the convenience went in the other direction. We now wanted larger screens to consume information on.

What purpose would a wrist strapped cellular smartwatch serve on its own without its smartphone companion?

Even if the Apple watch had 100% of the features of an iPhone who would want a 1.5" screen iPhone with no keyboard on their wrist?

Voice commands (Siri, Cortana, Google) are still many years away from replacing keyboard entry. With that being said you'd still want to carry your phone around with you which defeats the purpose of a stand alone watch.

A cellular iPad is a different story for example.

 

[exxxviii]

What purpose would a wrist strapped cellular smartwatch serve on its own without its smartphone companion?

If Apple gave me the choice for a device that would move the data and voice connectivity from my brick to a watch, I would do it in a minute. It is a no-brainer for me.

Today, I have to take both my watch and phone with me everywhere, regardless of the level of connected activity I want. I do not need the watch to do everything, just give me voice and data connectivity and a limited messaging interface. Then, I could go out without the phone brick. That would meet my 80% percentile of how I need and use a phone. Instead of the current brick, I could opt to carry a thinner, cheaper, and smaller iPod touch-grade device that will give me all the heavy lifting I could need. Functionally, the pair would be identical to today; but the future would give you the option to use just the watch for light duty situations.

 

[Armen]

If Apple gave me the choice for a device that would move the data and voice connectivity from my brick to a watch, I would do it in a minute. It is a no-brainer for me.

Today, I have to take both my watch and phone with me everywhere, regardless of the level of connected activity I want. I do not need the watch to do everything, just give me voice and data connectivity and a limited messaging interface. Then, I could go out without the phone brick. That would meet my 80% percentile of how I need and use a phone. Instead of the current brick, I could opt to carry a thinner, cheaper, and smaller iPod touch-grade device that will give me all the heavy lifting I could need. Functionally, the pair would be identical to today; but the future would give you the option to use just the watch for light duty situations.

How would you handle the following scenarios If you left the house with just your watch:

Phone calls: Would you be talking into your watch over speakerphone if you had to take a phone call or would you always carry around blue tooth headphones every time you left the house without your phone?

Data Consumption: How would you handle an important communication like an e-mail? You mentioned you would carry around another device. Why do that when you can just take your iPhone with you? I'm not sure I understand why you are labeling the iPhone as a "brick". It's thin and it's light.

The choice you are asking for is very minimal. If everyone felt the way you did the iphone would still have a 3.5" screen because a user could argue that they could use their iPad or laptop for heavy lifting.

 

[sziehr]

So battery life will always be an issue in the form factor of a watch. So I can toss in GPS right now but you get half a day. I read thread after thread about oh how crummy the battery life is compared to insert X. So they can't please people already sans the battery hog of GPS. I do think as more nano scale tech comes and the european and russian systems flesh out we might see a hybrid location service in the watch allowing it to use multi source data at a lower power. This chipset is not made yet in the form factor and power apple would need to keep what they have right now. I would say we are several years away. The LTE is a practicality thing for apple. I do not see them adding it unless they can do a sweet heart deal with ATT and VZW for say 2 bucks a month you can get limited freedom on your watch. I just would like to see them extend the battery life if the watch we have now and increase the speed at which apps load. I think these steps are coming home in OS 2 and OS 2 hardware is what we already have it feels like. OS 3 will probably allow even more access and a new sensor say blood glucose and Pulose / OX. These would combine to allow for a more rounded picture of your work out. They will tell you if your in the zone and what your blood glucose stores are for the rest of your workout.

I just do not see the practicality of having a completely free of tether apple watch. I mean lets face it right now they are walking a very fine line with carriers by having this device basically on as a free restricted tether device. I can not believe apple is getting away with it considering how profit driven VZW and ATT are.

 

[exxxviii]

How would you handle the following scenarios If you left the house with just your watch:

Phone calls: Would you be talking into your watch over speakerphone if you had to take a phone call or would you always carry around blue tooth headphones every time you left the house without your phone?

Data Consumption: How would you handle an important communication like an e-mail? You mentioned you would carry around another device. Why do that when you can just take your iPhone with you? I'm not sure I understand why you are labeling the iPhone as a "brick". It's thin and it's light.

The choice you are asking for is very minimal. If everyone felt the way you did the iphone would still have a 3.5" screen because a user could argue that they could use their iPad or laptop for heavy lifting.

Depends on the scenario. I would carry my future iPod Touch with me most of time, so your questions are mostly moot. The only times I would likely not have the brick is when going on a walk or wanted to be unencumbered. If I was in my car, then the car's hands-free would take the call. If I was on the move and did not have the future iPod touch handy, I would take the call on the watch. I could always call back if I needed a better environment. Conversely, if I anticipated that I might need email, then I would carry the future iPod Touch. The point is that I would have the choice to just have the watch and not the brick.

We currently live in a worldview where one device must do it all. That is why handsets are getting progressively larger. But, in a future world where wearable is likely to expand and we have the flexibility to choose our preferred mechanism of machine interaction, then a watch-sized device is sufficient for the connectivity component. We could be free to use the small watch UI, a larger iPod Touch UI, a laptop UI... whatever. The key is that we are wearing the connectivity-- the most essential component.

 

[Roller]

I can see the advantage of an Apple Watch that could receive and act on notifications without the need for an iPhone, though not at the expense of battery life. But the watch will never be able to compete with a phone for readability. My AW's display is about as large as it can practically be, whereas even the first iPhone's display was much larger. Even though they have feature sets in common, neither device can replace the other.

 

[firewood]

Two of the disadvantages of a more full-featured Apple Watch would be battery life and radiation.

It takes power for a cellular radio to contact a cell tower. A lot more power if you only have one or two bars. Currently, this runs down the comparatively huge battery on an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus. A watch-sized battery would only last a fraction of the time, compared to the current 2 battery set-up (watch + much larger smart phone).

Same with GPS. A GPS satellite radio receiver requires powers to acquire and decode the signals. With worse coverage (under trees, near tall buildings, etc.) even more power is required. That's why some GPS watches last only a few hours before needing a full recharge. Two batteries to do GPS is far better than one tiny one (one to get the GPS signal, the other to run a tiny, more power efficient display).

The last factor is RF from the antenna. A watch in close skin contact with ones wrist might send just a bit more RF power into ones body than even a phone in the back pocket of one's pants. And a tiny antenna would have to concentrate this RF energy into a tinier antenna, increasing the local RF density.

Battery technology is just not improving that fast (certain well below Moore's law pace). Antenna's are limited in basic size versus efficiency by the laws of Physics.

 

[Armen]

Depends on the scenario. I would carry my future iPod Touch with me most of time, so your questions are mostly moot. The only times I would likely not have the brick is when going on a walk or wanted to be unencumbered. If I was in my car, then the car's hands-free would take the call. If I was on the move and did not have the future iPod touch handy, I would take the call on the watch. I could always call back if I needed a better environment. Conversely, if I anticipated that I might need email, then I would carry the future iPod Touch. The point is that I would have the choice to just have the watch and not the brick.

We currently live in a worldview where one device must do it all. That is why handsets are getting progressively larger. But, in a future world where wearable is likely to expand and we have the flexibility to choose our preferred mechanism of machine interaction, then a watch-sized device is sufficient for the connectivity component. We could be free to use the small watch UI, a larger iPod Touch UI, a laptop UI... whatever. The key is that we are wearing the connectivity-- the most essential component.

There are cellular smartwatches out there. Consumers seem to not care too much for them.

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...2-pros-and-cons-of-a-cellular-smartwatch.html

"In 2009, LG Electronics created the Watch Phone to function over 3G cellular. LG's device had a camera and 1.4-in. display, which could be used for voice and video calls. It was also priced at more than $800."

 

[exxxviii]

There are cellular smartwatches out there. Consumers seem to not care too much for them.

I would not want either of the devices mentioned in the preview article either. They are both large and unattractive. And, it looks like they are positioned as either totally stand-alone devices or supplements in addition to a traditional phone. I would like a future device that has a similar elegant package as the watch, and can also connect me and my devices to voice and data.

 

[zhenya]

It's true that GPS consumes a lot of battery - but what's going largely unmentioned here is that it does so only when in use! The vast majority of the time it would just be sitting there doing nothing, consuming effectively no power. The same can be said of cellular chips - yes, they consume some power, but they are leaps and bounds better today than they were just a few years ago, so improvements that would make them feasible in a watch is not out of the realm of possibility, say by generation 3.

No, I don't want to make my phone calls from a watch, but I do want the freedom that would come from a watch that could free me from having to carry my phone with me absolutely everywhere, as people now basically expect you to be able to be contacted at any time. If I go for a run or a hike or just run to the store, my phone has to come with me - not because I need the screen, but because I need to be able to take messages and possibly a call.

 

[gppittjk]

This is exactly the idea, if you wanted to go for a quick run or a quick bike ride, you could leave without having to worry that you don't have your phone. I am aware of the trusted wifi feature being added in the new os, but with privacy being a selling point going foward as far as tech devices go, public wifi isn't a thing everywhere and it doesn't bode well with privacy.

In terms of the watch having its own data connection, we're probably no more than 2 or 3 years away. In terms of the watch becoming the hub for data and processing, and the phone/tablet/etc becoming essentially the passive external screen, we are much further away. Offloading processing from the phone to the watch would require huge leaps in processing efficiency, battery life, and cooling. I think if/when processors begin to transmit data via light rather than electron streams, this may become a possibility.

I don't know the limitations of Bluetooth technology, but I think that and (again) battery tech are what hold us back from making the phone the primary source of cellular data connections. Offloading only the data connectivity, not the processing, is a more feasible task for the watch, but we'd need a much stronger battery than the device has now for that to work. Most likely, there will be an intermediate step in which both the phone and the watch have cellular connections.

 

[Night Spring]

In terms of the watch having its own data connection, we're probably no more than 2 or 3 years away. In terms of the watch becoming the hub for data and processing, and the phone/tablet/etc becoming essentially the passive external screen, we are much further away. Offloading processing from the phone to the watch would require huge leaps in processing efficiency, battery life, and cooling. I think if/when processors begin to transmit data via light rather than electron streams, this may become a possibility.

I don't know the limitations of Bluetooth technology, but I think that and (again) battery tech are what hold us back from making the phone the primary source of cellular data connections. Offloading only the data connectivity, not the processing, is a more feasible task for the watch, but we'd need a much stronger battery than the device has now for that to work. Most likely, there will be an intermediate step in which both the phone and the watch have cellular connections.

I thought native apps in watch OS 2 are going to do more processing on the watch. Exactly how much is done on the watch and how much on the phone, we'll have to see.

In any case, I don't see the watch ever taking over data processing from the phone, just the cellular connection. It should be like how iPads do it when tethered to iPhones. The phone is just a wireless hotspot and the iPads do all their own processing. So I'm thinking eventually the watch could be the hotspot, and we can have iPads and iPod touches tether off the watch.

And btw, I think light IS electron stream, or maybe it's that radio waves aren't electron streams either, but waves of energy.... Maybe somebody who knows physics can explain better?

 

[exxxviii]

And btw, I think light IS electron stream, or maybe it's that radio waves aren't electron streams either, but waves of energy.... Maybe somebody who knows physics can explain better?

Light, radio, microwave, etc. are all electromagnetic waves. Just different frequencies. (I was a EE long ago, so I can actually answer this one. )

In any case, I don't see the watch ever taking over data processing from the phone, just the cellular connection. It should be like how iPads do it when tethered to iPhones. The phone is just a wireless hotspot and the iPads do all their own processing. So I'm thinking eventually the watch could be the hotspot, and we can have iPads and iPod touches tether off the watch.

Exactly. Apple is already partially doing this. For example, when a traditional phone call comes in to my iPhone, my iPad also rings. I could take the call on the iPad if I wanted to.

 

[Will0827]

In any case, I don't see the watch ever taking over data processing from the phone, just the cellular connection. It should be like how iPads do it when tethered to iPhones. The phone is just a wireless hotspot and the iPads do all their own processing. So I'm thinking eventually the watch could be the hotspot, and we can have iPads and iPod touches tether off the watch.

This pretty much, my idea for the watch is based on a very particular use case, going for a quick run or a quick errand as someone previously mentioned. In the same way that the cellular iPad isn't ment in anyway to replace an iPhone, a cellular capable watch isn't supposed to replace your phone either. Of course again this could be solved currently by building out mass public wifi, but that is a whole other story. If my idea of e-sim is what i think it is, maybe it will help in facilitating the process for owners of multiple devices to be running off a single plan, and paying an extra 5 bucks or something for whatever additional device you want to run off your plan.

 

[Night Spring]

I'm just wondering if the people who don't see a point for having an independent watch mostly drive everywhere? I don't drive, and I have stores within walking distance of my apartment. So I do a lot of quick 15-30 minutes errand runs in the neighborhood. And taking along the phone on those errand runs is a pain. I'm never going to stop and read stuff on the iPhone while doing my grocery shopping, or even make long phone calls. If the watch had its own cellular connection, I can just take my watch and leave the iPhone at home, yet I can still call my partner to ask him to check if we have any eggs left. Same thing at work. If I go across the street to get lunch, if the watch had its own cellular connection, I can just take.my watch and leave the phone at my desk. If my colleagues text me, I can text back saying be back soon, or if it's urgent I can have my lunch packed up and go back to work.

 

[mcdj]

User experience aside, if Apple introduced an autonomous cellular watch tomorrow, with a FREE data plan, it would sell like hot cakes.

The major hurdle in my view won't be the technology, it will be getting people to add yet another device to their data plans. If Apple made that free and easy, I see no reason for it not to be popular.

 

[sziehr]

This pretty much, my idea for the watch is based on a very particular use case, going for a quick run or a quick errand as someone previously mentioned. In the same way that the cellular iPad isn't ment in anyway to replace an iPhone, a cellular capable watch isn't supposed to replace your phone either. Of course again this could be solved currently by building out mass public wifi, but that is a whole other story. If my idea of e-sim is what i think it is, maybe it will help in facilitating the process for owners of multiple devices to be running off a single plan, and paying an extra 5 bucks or something for whatever additional device you want to run off your plan.

So the issue is a structural one for carriers. I mean even iPads that are LTE only have phone numbers that are unique. The carriers are just not setup for this sort of same number on multiple devices thing. I think that will hold apple back more than the hardware. This would require a total re-tooling of how vzw and the like do there billing and device tracking. Then there is the how do we route your call to your watch and your iPhone at the same time. Then who is responsible for when calls get lost in the mix. This would be dropped call gate in the making. I hope with ESim we can finally start to move away from every device having a phone number that no one uses.

 

[FatMax]

So the issue is a structural one for carriers. I mean even iPads that are LTE only have phone numbers that are unique. The carriers are just not setup for this sort of same number on multiple devices thing. I think that will hold apple back more than the hardware. This would require a total re-tooling of how vzw and the like do there billing and device tracking. Then there is the how do we route your call to your watch and your iPhone at the same time. Then who is responsible for when calls get lost in the mix. This would be dropped call gate in the making. I hope with ESim we can finally start to move away from every device having a phone number that no one uses.

This already works quite fine in Europe, so pretty easy to implement I would guess.

 

[Will0827]

So the issue is a structural one for carriers. I mean even iPads that are LTE only have phone numbers that are unique. The carriers are just not setup for this sort of same number on multiple devices thing. I think that will hold apple back more than the hardware. This would require a total re-tooling of how vzw and the like do there billing and device tracking. Then there is the how do we route your call to your watch and your iPhone at the same time. Then who is responsible for when calls get lost in the mix. This would be dropped call gate in the making. I hope with ESim we can finally start to move away from every device having a phone number that no one uses.

The multiple device for one plan may require alot of work for the carriers but if that isn't the route taken, then apple has done most of the work to make this possible, only thing missing is the hardware. With the connectivity features being added to watch os 2 the idea of leaving the watch behind will be somewhat possible granted you have access to wifi and however exactly the process of having the watch log on to said wifi networks works out. All that would be done is allow that to be done without needing wifi so it kind of is already being put in place, now just have to wait for a cellular version to be released. Even if the first cellular watch is released without onboard gps it will be fine.

 

[Armen]

I would not want either of the devices mentioned in the preview article either. They are both large and unattractive. And, it looks like they are positioned as either totally stand-alone devices or supplements in addition to a traditional phone. I would like a future device that has a similar elegant package as the watch, and can also connect me and my devices to voice and data.

So you want an elegant mobile hotspot that goes on your wrist. Whatever floats your boat brother

 

[Night Spring]

So you want an elegant mobile hotspot that goes on your wrist. Whatever floats your boat brother

What's wrong with wanting that? A hotspot is very useful. Wearing it on your wrist is a convenient way to carry it. And since you wear it on your wrist, you want it to be comfortable, and since it can be seen, you want it to look elegant.