Making it thinner

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by bchreng, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. bchreng macrumors 6502a

    bchreng

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #1
    Would moving the heart rate sensor to the bands (a la the MS Band) do much to make the Apple Watch appear any thinner? You guys think Apple ever do that?
     
  2. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #2
    Personally I wouldn't want this. Electronics in the band would significantly limit what kinds of bands one could use.
     
  3. matt9013 macrumors 6502

    matt9013

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    #3
    Exactly, I don't see a lot of 3rd party bands if we start getting electronics in them.
     
  4. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #4
    Why does it need to be thinner? My Tissot is thicker, I don't think it's a big deal.
     
  5. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #5
    Don't worry, they'll keep it where it is and find a way to make it thinner over time.

    Those of you asking why does it need to be thinner, remember this is Apple we're talking about. You know they're obsessed with thinness whether or not we like it.
     
  6. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #6
    The AW isn't getting thinner any time soon. They still don't have anywhere near all the sensors or the battery life they'd like.
     
  7. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #7
    You can shrink electronic components and even sensors. However you can't shrink a can a gasoline. Until we see a new or significant advance in battery tech you just can't make them smaller and hold the same amount of energy.
     
  8. jasie02 macrumors 6502a

    jasie02

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    #8
    A thinner phone is for easier to handle, store in Jean pocket, and could add case without too thick, why anyone need a thinner watch when it is always strapped on the wrist?
     
  9. JayLenochiniMac, Mar 3, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

    JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #9
    That's like saying why make the iMac thinner when the footprint is unchanged and doesn't take up any more space on the desk. That's Apple for you.
     
  10. exxxviii macrumors 65816

    exxxviii

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    #10
    A friend of mine just showed me his Fitbit Blaze. It is a little thinner than the AW. It is nice. It makes the AW look and feel bulky by comparison. (The Blaze is a little wider, so the total volume is probably greater than the AW.)
     
  11. gwhizkids macrumors 68020

    gwhizkids

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    #11
    I usually have 40-50% remaining at the end of a 16-17 hour day. Not enough for a second day, but plenty for 1 day. Given that, Apple really has battery over capacity now. Plus, I'm guessing the new version of the Watch will feature much less communication with the phone, hopefully significantly reducing battery draw from the radios.
     
  12. jasie02, Mar 3, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

    jasie02 macrumors 6502a

    jasie02

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    #12
    I know that's Apple's vision for everything, thinner is better, but why are we talking about it, if there is no need for us?
    Other than gossip about rumor, what does a thinner AW help fulfill our need?
     
  13. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #13
    While I agree that I can easily make it through 1 day with the current watch, the power management is extremely aggressive to make that happen. The CPU is underclocked, the screen is off most of the time, there is no GPS chip, and the sampling rate of the HR monitor is extremely low compared to the competition. When you are using a 3rd party app the watch can't be updated in the background, so you have to raise your wrist to wake the screen, then wait for the data to update.

    Apple has nothing to spare with the current battery life, and make no mistake, the AW will be a lot better when they can cut back on those power saving techniques, add more sensors, and provide 3-5 days of battery life like many other devices are already doing.
     
  14. IphoneIssues macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    #14
    Always a constant fascination with anorexic tech...
     
  15. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #15
    While big watches are the trend this days and more of a matter of style than anything else, one might argue that making it thinner has its advantages like being less likely to bang it/getting it caught in something and making it easier to fit under a tight shirt cuff.
     
  16. jasie02, Mar 3, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016

    jasie02 macrumors 6502a

    jasie02

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    #16
    So 1-2mm will prevent tuck under shirt?
    With thinness less than below?
    | |
    That is a good thinking, but a little stretch.

    Added: I would prefer Apple keep the same thickness but put in a bigger battery could last 2.5+ days. There is a different between a device need to be charged nightly vs every other day, so one won't get into low battery situation of forgot to charge for one night.
     
  17. Uofmtiger macrumors 68000

    Uofmtiger

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Location:
    Memphis
    #17
    I am the same way, but they apparently still believe they need more battery power if they want to have an "always on" mode for the watch face.

    I would also like to see it thinner, but I want an always on face and GPS more than I need it to be thinner, so I can wait for the tech to evolve to make it a thinner design. I should also mention that I wouldn't be opposed to having the option of a larger face to get GPS/always on features.
     

Share This Page