Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Just runners.
Bodybuilders/gym goers don't need gps.
Id love a cell connectivity as i can leave my phone at home or my locker and stream music apps to my earbuds. I could care less about gps since i don't run outside. Cell connectivity is bigger to more people imo.

Agree here. But I also seem to have a problem where my phone is connected to a single SSID with 2.4 and 5GHZ bands but still shows as disconnected when I turn off Bluetooth in the phone. Is there a watch setting in missing?
 
Agree here. But I also seem to have a problem where my phone is connected to a single SSID with 2.4 and 5GHZ bands but still shows as disconnected when I turn off Bluetooth in the phone. Is there a watch setting in missing?
Do you give it time to recognize the disconnect and switch over? I figured this was expected behaviour - that the watch turns off its wifi radio to save power when bluetooth is available.
Just now I did it. Took about 7 seconds for the watch to switch from connected over bluetooth to disconnected, then another 22 seconds to switch from disconnected, to connected over wifi (green cloud).

Edit: Took about 4 seconds to flip back to bluetooth after re-enabling. Also, attempting to re-test in a short timeframe, there was only about a second or two that the watch was in disconnected status - I hadn't hit the inactivity timeout for the wifi radio yet. :)

For those to say "it shouldn't work that way". Normally, you gradually go "out of coverage" from your iPhone's bluetooth radio. This gives the watch time to enable the wifi radio and switch its data path. Sudden loss of bluetooth radio isn't normal behaviour for an iPhone.
 
Last edited:
I have no interest in paying an extra line charge to have cellular on my watch.

I cancelled my line for my ipad and bought a wifi version vs LTE version of that cuz I got sick of paying for cell service.....

Longer battery life? yep
Faster app? yep
separate cell? nope!
 
  • Like
Reactions: newdeal
How does this have anything to do with a cellular Watch?

The watch still isn't a standalone device. It will see your phone eventually.

1) Read the functionality description
2) Ask yourself why choose these functionalities for the design
3) Use your imagination
4) Connect the dots

Incidentally, note that my iphone can "see" and handoff to and from my Mac. It is still a standalone device though....
 
The old AW could pair with Bluetooth devices. iPods (none of which have cellular) can pair with Bluetooth devices. How is this different?
 
Investigate the item and analyse it.
How do these AirPods have anything to do with cellular radios?

I thought this thread was about a cellular AW.

I get it -- the AirPods automatically pair with any device you have on your iCloud account (and running watchOS 3, iOS 10, etc) and that's pretty slick. No special codes, no "hold until it beeps five times and hit Pair on your iPhone" nonsense. Even better.

So what does this have to do with a cellular Apple Watch?
 
How do these AirPods have anything to do with cellular radios?

I thought this thread was about a cellular AW.

I get it -- the AirPods automatically pair with any device you have on your iCloud account (and running watchOS 3, iOS 10, etc) and that's pretty slick. No special codes, no "hold until it beeps five times and hit Pair on your iPhone" nonsense. Even better.

So what does this have to do with a cellular Apple Watch?
Think.
 
...but fine with WiFi and BT radios?o_O If it is fear of electromagnetic radiation how do you deal with by far the biggest and widest source, the sun?:eek:
I wear an spf and tin hat

but to add. I don't want to have a cellular radio sitting on my wrist for several reasons.

for one, WIFI/BT radios are operation and emitting a fraction of the RF radiation that a cellular radio trying to connect or maintain a connection to a tower are.. wifi less than 5% of the RF radiation and BT someone around 1/1000%.. hard to say exactly.

Regardless, these the two current radios (and future radios will be even more efficient and thereby need to use and emit less power) preset a substantially lower RF radiation footprint than does the cellular 3g/LTE radio in the phone - and I would imagine a SIM enabled watch would be similar.

but second. Apple and phone companies don't even WANT you to hold the phone up to your head and skin. They SAY that in the manual "don't hold device any closer than 5/8th of an inch to your skin or head" this is a quote!

If they don't want us to have the phone within more than half and inch from our head, what is the logic going to be when it's sitting PERMANENTLY on the wrist?

I'll stick with a BT/WIFI version in the future if that stays and option
 
Last edited:
Your attempt to open up your thinking would be what furthers the discussion. So try. Ask yourself what this could enable. Look for the bigger picture.
 
Your attempt to open up your thinking would be what furthers the discussion. So try. Ask yourself what this could enable. Look for the bigger picture.
Soooooooooo........

It could enable using the earphones with the watch without a phone nearby?

Isn't that what's possible already?

.......
 
Soooooooooo........

It could enable using the earphones with the watch without a phone nearby?

Isn't that what's possible already?

.......

Either you dont want to think much - or pretending you cant. Gets nothing from me.
 
...for one, WIFI/BT radios are operation and emitting a fraction of the RF radiation that a cellular radio trying to connect or maintain a connection to a tower are.. wifi less than 5% of the RF radiation and BT someone around 1/1000%.. hard to say exactly....
Why does low energy 600MHz electromagnetic radiation scare you but high energy 600THz electromagnetic radiation does not?:eek:
 
Why does low energy 600MHz electromagnetic radiation scare you but high energy 600THz electromagnetic radiation does not?:eek:
could you define the applicability of these frequencies and bandwidth/wavelengths to GSM/BT/WIFI wavelengths and frequencies? BT/WIFI are riding withing a ghz and, on a pretty narrow mhz wideband frequency.
 
The lower frequency is in the cell phone range and the higher frequency is Red (and it is very dangerous to your health).:D
 
Last edited:
I dont really care about cell chip but it would be cool if you could connect your watch to your carrier and do things like wifi calling with tmo without having your phone with you. Or using Apple Pay on your watch without having your phone with you (don't think you can do this already)
 
I dont really care about cell chip but it would be cool if you could connect your watch to your carrier and do things like wifi calling with tmo without having your phone with you. Or using Apple Pay on your watch without having your phone with you (don't think you can do this already)

one certainly can do apple pay without the phone, and ATT and I think verizon will let you make and receive calls when connected to WIFI but WITHOUT the phone..
[doublepost=1473472680][/doublepost]
The lower frequency is in the cell phone range and the higher frequency is Red (and it is very dangerous to your health).:D

could you maybe follow this up with some scientific information or research that would define it better so I can better understand please? I get the ranges, but don't understand your assignment of 600mhz to cell phones and not sure what RED or how that pertains to WIFI/Bluetooth frequencies or radiation?

Inquiring minds want to know
 
Thought I'd ask. I don't really care or want it because it would mean a different # and or another charge/data ontop of phone.

Looks at it this way. If the watch has cellular data, with the new AirPods you can simply ditch the iPhone and use the watch instead (if software let you manage your watch via iPad) so no paying extra needed. For web and app function you can use iPad mini in the phone place. The Watch will become the true communication device.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.