How many versions until we see the "iPad Air 2" equivalent of the Apple Watch?

[mcdj]

Having owned every iPhone and iPad iteration, the Watch looks an awful lot like a typical 1st gen Apple device to me. Rounded corners, puffy, a little overweight. (Kinda like me, come to think of it.)

I gave Apple a sleekness pass on the iPhone 1st gen, even though it looked a bit chunky, as it was such groundbreaking technology, but I had a sneaking suspicion that the iPad 1 was purposely fattened up and weighted down a bit, so as to *really* get the drool flowing for the lighter sleeker iPad 2, which as we know was the runaway smash that put an tablet in more people's hands than perhaps any tablet has since.

The iPad Air 2 is, 5 years later, practically magical. Fast, ridiculously thin, and although it could still probably be a bit lighter, very light. Even though it will likely come, it's hard to imagine another iPad that will make the Air 2 seem fat, heavy, and slow.

It is not hard, however, to imagine a future Watch that will make the first gen feel fat, heavy, and slow. So will we have to wait 5 years to get an Watch that feels as miraculous as an iPad Air 2? Or will Apple fast track the watch's diet and speed boost in a V2 or V3 model, because technology is moving faster now than it did 5 years ago, or because it needs to, to maintain interest in a watch that everyone wanted, but less than everyone seems blown away by?

 

[whatos]

Three versions spanning 30 months

 

[mcdj]

Kinda doubt they'll dip below a 12 month cycle per refresh, especially for a V2. That has historically pissed off their most vocal fans.

 

[zmunkz]

They typically cut a few mm per iteration, so I would guess the 3-4 year mark. But anything that depends on this product's refresh cycle is necessarily highly speculative... There are currently good arguments going around for yearly (each april) to much longer that a year.

 

[amro]

They'll be adding more sensors before they thin it. This is a new category for them. I wouldn't be surprised if it was on a two year cycle. Based on iFixit's teardown, this thing won't be upgradable like was rumored before the launch.

 

[Cory Bauer]

Having owned every iPhone and iPad iteration, the Watch looks an awful lot like a typical 1st gen Apple device to me. Rounded corners, puffy, a little overweight. (Kinda like me, come to think of it.)

I gave Apple a sleekness pass on the iPhone 1st gen, even though it looked a bit chunky, as it was such groundbreaking technology, but I had a sneaking suspicion that the iPad 1 was purposely fattened up and weighted down a bit, so as to *really* get the drool flowing for the lighter sleeker iPad 2, which as we know was the runaway smash that put an tablet in more people's hands than perhaps any tablet has since.

The iPad Air 2 is, 5 years later, practically magical. Fast, ridiculously thin, and although it could still probably be a bit lighter, very light. Even though it will likely come, it's hard to imagine another iPad that will make the Air 2 seem fat, heavy, and slow.

It is not hard, however, to imagine a future Watch that will make the first gen feel fat, heavy, and slow. So will we have to wait 5 years to get an Watch that feels as miraculous as an iPad Air 2? Or will Apple fast track the watch's diet and speed boost in a V2 or V3 model, because technology is moving faster now than it did 5 years ago, or because it needs to, to maintain interest in a watch that everyone wanted, but less than everyone seems blown away by?

The Watch's future iterations will be driven entirely by battery life and the physical constraints of the device. All the things people want added (faster processor, on-board GPS, thinner design) negatively impact battery life, while simultaneously people want the battery to last days or weeks instead of hours.

Apple's going to have some very tough calls to make. I don't imagine it's going to get any thinner or smaller anytime soon; any additional space they could find would be filled with battery as opposed to trimmed away.

That said, after having wore the watch for a few weeks now, it does not seem chunky in person the way it appeared to me originally in photos. It seems the right size for a watch and as small as the crown already is it would become impossibly small if the body were even thinner. But I do think they could compress the screen down into the body so that the glass is flush with the top of the case instead of bubbling out from the top; that would certainly be a welcome aesthetic improvement.

 

[JPIndustrie]

That said, after having wore the watch for a few weeks now, it does not seem chunky in person the way it appeared to me originally in photos. It seems the right size for a watch and as small as the crown already is it would become impossibly small if the body were even thinner. ..

I agree. The watch seemed too big at first, then at the try ons were surprisingly small. Now after a day with one it seems just right, very comfortable!

Honestly I suppose I see it getting sleeker and lighter and faster, etc

but really, credit where credit due. When the first iPhone came out in 2007 there wasn't already a specific look or design already in place that would make it feel 'fat' or not sleek. I don't know, I still remember the feeling of holding something different and special with that first iPhone - I feel the same WEARING the watch, which - dare I say it, is VERY much jewelry-like.

 

[mcdj]

When the first iPhone came out in 2007 there wasn't already a specific look or design already in place that would make it feel 'fat' or not sleek.

My last non-iPhone was a Samsung X820, at the time the thinnest phone in the world, and nearly half as thick and heavy as an iPhone. Funny enough, the X820 was exactly as thick as the current iPhone 6, at 6.9mm. The X820 definitely made the iPhone 1 feel chubby.

 

[lazyrighteye]

I could see new Watch cadence align with every new iPhone model but skipping the S (assuming they stick with new + S cadence). So next update would be with an iPhone 7.

Hard to say. Lots of interesting theories.

 

[Blackstick]

Making the watch thinner/lighter/faster (Apple's usual go-to tricks) is not ideal with respect to its battery life. I'd expect annual updates, but not necessarily with the jumps we've seen on other product lines, year over year. This just my opinion.

 

[bunnicula]

Making the watch thinner/lighter/faster (Apple's usual go-to tricks) is not ideal with respect to its battery life. I'd expect annual updates, but not necessarily with the jumps we've seen on other product lines, year over year. This just my opinion.

Agreed.

I think they'll want to focus on doing more with the current form factor (sensors, speed, battery life) before they try to make the watch any thinner.

Besides, does anyone want a watch that'll bend?

 

[ZEEN0j]

I agree that apples main priority is probably battery life. But I also think they have a goal that they'll probably settle for. Maybe 2 days usage/standby with 3 days power reserve. That will fit most use cases, such as iphones 8+ battery life.
Once they reach that all extra powers savings they get with smaller components will not go to a bigger battery but better cpu and more sensors imo. With apples way of thinking we are far far away from a apple watch that works for a week. We need new batteries for that.

To answer the op's question. My guess is watch 4-6. I don't think the watch will get thin like an iphone unless they make two or more models.

 

[H3rman]

When they can make batteries thin enough, light enough and powerful enough to last all day in a smaller form factor.