Kuo: Apple Watch Series 6 Models to Feature Faster Performance and Improved Water Resistance

[CarlJ]

Really? 50 meters..164'......That's beyond the depth of most scuba divers.

Except water resistance doesn't work that way. The "depth" ratings are a convenience for understanding, they're really a rough translation of pressure ratings, which are the important thing. The "meter" ratings mean the watch can withstand water pressure equivalent to it sitting motionless in still water at that depth. As soon as you start moving it around under water, so the watch is being pushed through the water (like, say, moving your arms while swimming), the water pressure on it goes way up.

Dive into a 10ft deep pool? It's subjected to water pressure much higher than "10 feet deep". Fall off water skis? The watch can momentarily get subjected to tremendous water pressure without ever going more than a couple feet below the surface. It's the same thing that makes a "belly flop" into a pool hurt so much, even if you're only going one or two meters deep.

So, yeah, "50 meter water resistance" is generally good for swimming. For scuba diving, I think they generally look for at least "200 meter water resistance" (and, more importantly, for real diving watches, they pressure test every single watch, not just one out of each production lot, or a single one at the beginning of production). The "meter" ratings are easy marketing terms, the real pressure ratings are given in atmospheres or bars.

 

[Complex757]

My performance is already great. I'd rather have better battery life.

 

[Just sayin...]

I hope they focus on improving HR metrics...

Apple Watch Series 5 First Run Impressions Video Up!

This post is just a super quick note that I pushed out a video with my initial impressions on the Apple Watch Series 5. I know that there’s surprisingly little overlap between my readership here on the site and

www.dcrainmaker.com

...and working on bringing together athletic data better. When/if they can do this, I can get rid of my Garmin watch. Also, to borrow from a YouTube reviewer, it would be great if Apple could give watch users an option to engage always-on display when in an actual activity, but revert to wrist movement activation only in normal use.

 

[hanser]

I was hoping that this would be the year of independence from iPhone. Or would that be a software decision rather than hardware?

 

[CarlJ]

I was hoping that this would be the year of independence from iPhone. Or would that be a software decision rather than hardware?

Getting really close: LTE, App Store, Software Update are all in place.

 

[5232152]

Seriously Apple. Put more battery into that, not more power.
A smartwatch that does not even hold battery for an entire weekend?
Ridiculous.

 

[Billyk711]

While the Apple Watch Series 5 lineup was released less than two months ago, rumors are already looking ahead to next year.

In a research note with investor firm TF International Securities, seen by MacRumors, noted Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has predicted that 2020 Apple Watch models will feature faster performance, improved water resistance, and improved wireless transmission for potentially faster Wi-Fi and cellular speeds.

Kuo believes all of these advancements will be made possible by Apple's switch to liquid crystal polymer or LCP material for the flexible circuit boards in next year's Apple Watch models, expected to launch in the second half of the year as usual. Series 5 models and earlier use a material known as polyimide or PI.

Dongshan Precision, Avary Holding, and Flexium Interconnect will be the primary LCP suppliers, according to Kuo.

It would not be surprising if so-called Apple Watch Series 6 models feature a faster Apple-designed S chip, as the only known differences with the S5 chip in Series 5 models compared to the S4 chip in Series 4 models is a built-in compass and a new always-on display driver, so a performance bump will be due next year.

As for water resistance, Apple Watch Series 2 models are already suitable for swimming or showering and can be submerged to a depth of up to 50 meters. With further improvements, perhaps Series 6 models could be certified for some high-velocity water activities such as scuba diving or water skiing.

Previous reports have suggested that 2020 Apple Watch models may also feature sleep tracking and MicroLED displays.

Article Link: Kuo: Apple Watch Series 6 Models to Feature Faster Performance and Improved Water Resistance

Good grief this guy Ming is usually wrong,
Ever since his main source was fired, he has nothing, his numbers are way off all the time, pretty soon he will say new iPhone will come out in sept with new A series chip better cameras and better performance, and production will be delayed,
how do I become a Apple analysts.
Don’t forget about that sapphire display he said was eminent, he never seems to explain his misses, macrumors thinks everything he says is 100%

 

[manu chao]

Then I guess that to some people the missing roaming capability of the Watch is an issue.

And that is why I used the term 'hyperbole', you have a point, you just vastly exaggerated it. Roaming is clearly more important in Europe, not just because of proximity to borders and movement patterns crossing those borders but also because of the abolition of roaming fees within the EU.

But one of the few things the Series 5 improved (besides AOD and compass) was to add more bands to the (now two) LTE versions of the Apple Watch. Quite possibly related to that is the wider international emergency call functionality. How much the additional bands do or could help with roaming, I don't know, but it should rather help than hurt.

 

[i486dx2-66]

Try holding your Apple Watch to your face for like 3 minutes or so. Try to simulate a conversation, sing the National Anthem or something like that.

See? It's incredibly inconvenient. That's why the AW doesn't have a camera.

Long-duration Facetime calls are far from the only use of a camera. Being able to snap a photo while shopping to verify if you have the right product, or to scan barcodes, or to save a photo reminder, document an accident while exercising, snap a pic of a sign in an airport, etc, etc... there are all kinds of uses for a camera on-the-go, especially for those who use the watch while leaving their phones behind.

And even for Facetime, the ability to say just "Hey Mom, we made it to Sydney!" or "Look at these mountains on our hike!" in a one-minute call would be a huge deal.

 

[DotCom2]

Long-duration Facetime calls are far from the only use of a camera. Being able to snap a photo while shopping to verify if you have the right product, or to scan barcodes, or to save a photo reminder, document an accident while exercising, snap a pic of a sign in an airport, etc, etc... there are all kinds of uses for a camera on-the-go, especially for those who use the watch while leaving their phones behind.

And even for Facetime, the ability to say just "Hey Mom, we made it to Sydney!" or "Look at these mountains on our hike!" in a one-minute call would be a huge deal.

A Camera on the Apple Watch would be an instant buy for me.

 

[StyxMaker]

I use mine everywhere, ocean, pools, shower etc. It's been great on my AW2/AW3.

But as a backup, I have AppleCare, so I can put it to the test!

I’ve been going into the pool wearing my Apple Watch since my series 0. Never had any water damage.

 

[The Game 161]

Good grief this guy Ming is usually wrong,
Ever since his main source was fired, he has nothing, his numbers are way off all the time, pretty soon he will say new iPhone will come out in sept with new A series chip better cameras and better performance, and production will be delayed,
how do I become a Apple analysts.
Don’t forget about that sapphire display he said was eminent, he never seems to explain his misses, macrumors thinks everything he says is 100%

he isn't perfect but he is certainly more correct than he is wrong.

 

[iPadCary]

Until Apple Watches work on their own with no iPhone needed, I've ZIPPO interest.

 

[brucemr]

Except water resistance doesn't work that way. The "depth" ratings are a convenience for understanding, they're really a rough translation of pressure ratings, which are the important thing. The "meter" ratings mean the watch can withstand water pressure equivalent to it sitting motionless in still water at that depth. As soon as you start moving it around under water, so the watch is being pushed through the water (like, say, moving your arms while swimming), the water pressure on it goes way up.

Dive into a 10ft deep pool? It's subjected to water pressure much higher than "10 feet deep". Fall off water skis? The watch can momentarily get subjected to tremendous water pressure without ever going more than a couple feet below the surface. It's the same thing that makes a "belly flop" into a pool hurt so much, even if you're only going one or two meters deep.

So, yeah, "50 meter water resistance" is generally good for swimming. For scuba diving, I think they generally look for at least "200 meter water resistance" (and, more importantly, for real diving watches, they pressure test every single watch, not just one out of each production lot, or a single one at the beginning of production). The "meter" ratings are easy marketing terms, the real pressure ratings are given in atmospheres or bars.

Correct.

I’ve been involved offshore with deadly serious saturation diving projects from 80 to 140m.

Hydrostatic pressure (pressure, in bars or psi due to density of water at depth) is always referred to as meters or feet of depth in diving.

For example, when saturation divers (in a pressure chamber) are being gradually “taken down“, the pressure in the divers habitat (pressure chamber) is referred to in depth units. On bottom, while working, they “are at“ whatever depth they are at. Later, when they are being, very slowly, decompressed (inside the pressurized chamber), the progress of their decompression is referred to in depth units. Despite them already being already back onboard the ship.

The hydrostatic pressure at 100m depth in seawater is 10 bar (145 psi). But depth is the language for depth-related pressure in diving (pressure is for the air tanks!).

It is the same in recreational diving, and always has been, including advanced. All dive tables are in depth units, not pressure.

Edit: typos.

 

[extrachrispy]

Come on, glucose monitoring!

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

FaceTime on a 40/44 MM display? Seems One could easily just revert to the iPhone versus using a smart watch that doesn’t provide much functionality for a camera on the Apple Watch. In the same aspect, I feel the other smart watch competitors would have already added something like this with a camera, if it was absolutely a feature that _would_ be a selling point, in which case, I don’t believe it would be at all.

i watch videos on my watch when i can. generally when sent by text. it’s a nice convenience.

 

[DotCom2]

I just want a camera on my watch so I can take a quick pic of the license plate of the guy who just ran over my Buddy.
I kid, but you guys get my drift. I would love the quick ability to snap a pic when need arises even tho I'm sure it would be a low res one. It might come in very handy some day.

 

[Toratek]

Wasn't the 4 slimmer and a larger screen?

still the same basic design and strap compatibility.

 

[munpip214]

100m is not good enough? so, you and how many other people actually scuba dive to 328' depth? Wait for the 200m version so you can take it down to 656'......and see if the watch leaks?

Depth rating is all about pressure, not just depth. It is true that recreational divers generally will not go deeper than 40 meters, but it could be possible that you do go a bit farther (or perhaps you drop your watch). Technical diving would venture farther, but not to 200m. Then why isn't the watch good enough now? First of all, as with any rating, you don't really want to go right up to the maximum as there is a big risk it might fail. Maybe it is 50m+/-5m, or only for a certain amount of time. As with all ratings, these are done under specific testing environments and usually best case so that they can give the devices a high rating (marketing). For instance you might test in pure water, but not salt water or different altitudes. There are also other things to consider such as being down at 40m and your hand hits a rock or a tank. That added pressure could easily, temporarily, double the pressure on your watch. Or jumping in to the water, when it first hits the surface of the water, that is a lot of pressure (why apple recommends not wearing apple watch with water skiing). With regular use of the watch too, the pressure resistance will slowly decrease as cases get damaged, seals wear out, so you want to have a large cushion of safety on your depth rating. 50m definitely not enough. 100m might work for some. 200m recommended for longevity and handling any environment variance or accident.

 

[oeagleo]

Not in specs, but it's faster in real-world usage.

The always-on display lets you read the watch without having to tap the display or flip you wrist, both of which take small but important amounts of time to make those movements. So if you wanted to check the time, temperature, your next meeting, etc, it can be accomplished much more quickly on a S5 than any prior Apple watch. 👍

True statement, but I must ask, "define faster"? How many milliseconds does it take to either tap the display, or move your wrist? At what cost to battery life? Myself, my "schedule" isn't packed so tight that I must manage each second of the day, and if it did, I would look very closely at adjusting that schedule. Just sayin, we're all guided by tiny incremental "advances". Just my 2c worth.
[automerge]1574186498[/automerge]

no you are wrong, the next next next next one ... is the one to get!
[automerge]1573493128[/automerge]

where's blood O2 continuous monitoring?

I bought a Fenix 6 Pro specifically for that reason, and to be honest, it took such a hit on battery life that I disabled the 24/7, and went only with the "sleeping SpO2". Still hit the battery life horribly, only get perhaps a week of battery if I'm lucky. I don't see SpO2 monitoring on the AW until the battery becomes MUCH better. If the 2 week battery of the Garmin takes a 50% hit with only night time monitoring, I can hear the squeals already.. LOL
It DID seem pretty accurate though on the Garmin, compared to the dedicated meter I have.

 

[i486dx2-66]

True statement, but I must ask, "define faster"? How many milliseconds does it take to either tap the display, or move your wrist?

I would say that the delay removed by having the always-on-display is several orders of magnitude greater than any improvement that could ever be realized by improving the watch's processor performance. From both a technical and a practical standpoint, it really is that significant.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

This logic is funny Lol.

I’m glad that I’m able to upgrade every year by just selling the previous model and having it totally cover the cost of the new model. Never have to worry about “the next one”.

What is your method for maximising the resale value may I ask? All the secondhand S4 watches I saw for sale prior and post S5 launch were suffering large depreciation. It’s the reason I’d never upgrade each year and tend to make my AW last 3 years if I can.

I paid £399 for my S5 but a similar S4 was around £200-230 on eBay and the like. The stainless steel models were around £300-350 which is pretty much a 50% depreciation.

 

[V_Man]

Just updated my S2 to a S4. S5 wasn't worth the extra $300 cost. Unless Apple has some amazing features in the S6, I won't be getting that one either. These half baked incremental updates are wasteful and just money grabs.

Series 4 is a great watch.

 

[newyorksole]

What is your method for maximising the resale value may I ask? All the secondhand S4 watches I saw for sale prior and post S5 launch were suffering large depreciation. It’s the reason I’d never upgrade each year and tend to make my AW last 3 years if I can.

I paid £399 for my S5 but a similar S4 was around £200-230 on eBay and the like. The stainless steel models were around £300-350 which is pretty much a 50% depreciation.

I’m at an unfair advantage because I get a pretty decent discount on my Watches thru work.

 

[blcamp]

I replaced my S3 with an S4 last May... love the newer design but I have to wonder if the glass is of a lesser grade than the earlier Watch models. I've always had Aluminum/Ion-X in every model I've owned and have been careful with all of them, but the current S4 I own has two nasty scratches from the bottom upwards on the glass. Is it softer now, as a result of the larger surface area?