Because Steve Jobs was the designer previously? Just another pointless Apple hater.
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.
Jony Ive's Design Team Nixed Apple Watch Band With Sensors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is speaking in absolutes for no reason. just speak for myself. Changing watch bands is easy and I like to be able to swap them quickly. I love that implementation, so do many others, as documented in the watch forum here.
That is rather your expectation than their message.
Let's remind ourselves that neither Mac OS, OS X, or iOS for that matter have shipped completely without bugs or places to improve. Every software does.
Disagree, the image you paint is a bigger battery would add a ton of weight and push us back to one of those old school brick phones which is not the case.
I'm not sure if you owned an iphone 4/4s which I believe is heavier than today's crop of Iphones reviews and users did not complain about the weight of the device same with the S7 edge.
Better battery life adds to user experience, if battery life was not important to the user, Apple would not have spent years bragging about it in their other devices.
A camera bumpless phone is well worth the trade-off.
Let's not forget that hideous battery pack Apple makes and the ones other manufacturers make are bulky and cumbersome.
Others have pointed out that health bands might fall within FDA jurisdiction, which would delay release.
""the image you paint is a bigger battery would add a ton of weight and push us back to one of those old school brick phones which is not the case"
I'm sorry, I didn't mean for my post to whoosh over your head. Please read again and try and comment without all the hyperbole.
I said everything about product design revolves around trades. The trade in this case is a heavier, thicker phone for greater battery life. Obviously, that's a user experience trade. I also said the trick is finding the right user experience balance. Apple made a choice based on the understanding of their majority of their customers. Many will be satisfied. Some will not. Such as yourself. That's the way trades work. Not everyone will not be satisfied.
Fortunately there are a lot of phone options out there. People should purchase the phone that meets their needs.
For what it's costs for a $50 silicone watch band that costs $6 to make, Apple could have put the sensors in the band.
Maybe your watch has an issue, or you're wearing it too loosely. My Apple Watch had is very accurate at even elevated heart rates.
I exercise a lot with mine and have the same results. Consistent and accurate.
This hasn't been my experience. I don't think this is a consistent issue.
Yes, the tension between design and engineering; in the world of industrial design, it will be forever thus. They don't exclude each other by any means, but the differences in approach of these disciplines to a problem is clear, and we've certainly seen a lot of tech products that show which one was calling the shots.
Apple will always take the heat for leaving some feature off a product because the design team concluded it wasn't useful or refined enough to include, or got in the way of some other design goal for the product. The watch band story is a perfect example of Apple leading with design and overruling the engineers, who would have loved the technical possibilities of sensors in the band. This kind of approach will always annoy the more engineering-inclined, who seem to believe that products should be designed with them in mind. Apple never has and never will. This is really at the heart of much of the criticism of Apple we read on these boards daily.
It's personal experience. In my post, I clearly stated 'It's fairly accurate, which differ from person to person.' I speak based solely on my experience with the Watch.
They didn't add GPS because of battery concerns. This wouldn't change that.
We're talking solely about moving the sensors that are already in the watch to a different part of your wrist. Nothing more.
Right. Which is why I clearly stated in my post "Which differ from person to person."
well people will pay what's asked, regardless of whether it's reasonable or not. apple's margins are through the roof on this stuff.
I have used many HR monitors on the wrist and the Apple watch is the worst. The device is completely inconsistent. I run 5 miles every other day and at numerous times during each run my HR will say 60-69. WTF! When it should be will over 130+. Same inconsistency for spinning. The watch is on tight enough so that is not the issue. Problem I have with the article is, is the watch for looks or for health? Because Apple spends an awful lot of time marketing it as a fitness and health device. If a decision was based on bands than device accuracy then don't push as a fitness device. That crap is for the Kardashians.
I don't believe battery concerns were what motivated the exclusion of GPS. Apple already includes the ability to take and place phone calls on the watch, which if used continuously will suck the battery down in less than 3 hours. GPS on most other wrist worn devices can last up to 10 hours or longer if used continuously. So GPS would use much less battery than the phone app.
Rumor has it that GPS will be included in watch 2, which is unlikely to substantially improve battery life. So power was not the chief concern if that turns out to be true.
Well, not meaning to belabor a point, or whatever: There are things that are engineered for engineering sake. To me, having complicated sensor bands would be thus. The possibility of things shorting out, and just failing would be huge, unless the bands were Bluetooth which would be grossly 'over engineered' IMO. (Could you imagine having to charge your band? Sounds like a Microsoft product)
Needlessly complicated things were what Apple (Steve Jobs) went to battle against. If anything, that's what I see missing in some of Apple's newer products and especially their software. iTunes is a hot mess of WTF that has gotten slightly better. The iBooks app on the Mac is another example. The 'update' part just blows for me for some reason. Mail is another hot mess. I go from liking it, in an 'arms length' way, to actively loathing it and wishing the programmers underwear full of fire ants.
But hey...
Last edited:
I strongly dislike this little anecdote, (though it's apparently meant to be taken as a good thing).
To me, it shows how people only concerned with style/fashion/looks can really hurt the functionality of a product.
When your engineer tells you that it's a simple fact that a sensor placed on or near the bottom of a wrist can more accurately pick up a heartbeat than one placed on top, that should be implemented as part of the design. IMO, such things are really non-negotiable. There's really nothing "innovative" about spending untold amounts of money, time and effort to work around a fact like this.
You have to buy (expensive) Apple Watch compatible wristbands anyway. It's not like any old generic band fits. So who cares if they all have sensors built into them?
To me, it shows how people only concerned with style/fashion/looks can really hurt the functionality of a product.
When your engineer tells you that it's a simple fact that a sensor placed on or near the bottom of a wrist can more accurately pick up a heartbeat than one placed on top, that should be implemented as part of the design. IMO, such things are really non-negotiable. There's really nothing "innovative" about spending untold amounts of money, time and effort to work around a fact like this.
You have to buy (expensive) Apple Watch compatible wristbands anyway. It's not like any old generic band fits. So who cares if they all have sensors built into them?
They are talking about moving the sensors to a less optimal part of your wrist; using space and battery life that could have been used elsewhere; not using the band to fit in GPS or better batteries; etc.
These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.
If you are a fan of computers that just work, then Jony Ive is about the worst thing that has happened to Apple. Thinner and thinner phones, no headphone jack soon, let's try and remove more buttons, let's make sure the phone is less usable and more minimalistic every time, let's ignore our laptops for years since they aren't fashion statements, etc...
I have to agree with HR measuring inaccuracies. I've had two watches and both were unable to accurately record my HR while using the elliptical -- my HR hovers in the 70-90 range when I know for a fact that it is much higher.
Strangely, the watch is much better measuring HR on runs.
Strangely, the watch is much better measuring HR on runs.
I wonder why they don't list "sweat" as a factor in heart rate monitoring?
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666
Fashionability--at least to some extent--is critical for mass adoption. It is a select audience (read "small") that will wear something for its functionality despite its appearance. If people feel silly or self-conscious when they wear something, they won't keep wearing it. And Apple needs these to be worn, for people to see them being worn, to build up demand.
To me, the Apple Watch still seems nerdy, but it looks a lot less nerdy than most other smart watches.
To me, the Apple Watch still seems nerdy, but it looks a lot less nerdy than most other smart watches.
Ding ding ding - we have a winner. Apple has patents for modular smart bands and flexible batteries that can be incorporated into a watch band. Right now the interchangeable bands are only fashion accessories, but there's no reason why they couldn't provide specific functions. Just as one might wear a classier looking band for a special date, one likewise could wear an activity-specific band that provides enhanced functionality (e.g., extended battery life, etc.)
Current rumors say that Apple will incorporate GPS into a future model. But GPS kills battery life (actually, real-time processing of the GPS data is a huge source of battery drain), and it adds bulk to the watch. One solution would be to provide a band that includes the GPS and an extended battery. So you can go cycling outside for six hours, tracking your activity all the while, then swap bands when you get home, without having killed the watch's internal battery. Lastly, while this band would not be of interest to all customers, it definitely would be of interest to fitness enthusiasts, who would be willing to pay good money for it.
I should add this caveat: just because Apple has patents related to incorporating sensors/batteries into a watch band doesn't mean we'll ever see these kinds of bands on the market. I think Apple will always prefer to incorporate GPS, additional sensors, etc., into the body of the watch, as that's a more elegant solution. And while it's a safe bet that the future S2 processor, display, etc. will be more power efficient, additional sensors and/or GPS will impact battery life in a measurable way - the question is by how much. Since battery technology advances at a relatively glacial pace (as compared to other technologies), Apple just might offer an elegant band (I disagree that "...it does not have to look pretty") that provides the additional battery life necessary to get the watch through an entire day (or even a night too, since many people want to use the watch as a sleep tracker).
