Then why do they allow you to make and receive phone calls on the watch?
It's supposed to be for glances, but the New York Times and Apple Insider have native apps for it. Go figure, people want to use an Apple product in a way other than intended.
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.
Reaction to Apple Watch: it doesn't have a camera?!
- Thread starter harry20larry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then why do they allow you to make and receive phone calls on the watch?
It's supposed to be for glances, but the New York Times and Apple Insider have native apps for it. Go figure, people want to use an Apple product in a way other than intended.
I can easily see Apple putting a FaceTime camera in probably the 3rd generation of AppleWatch. Why not? We're almost catching up to the Jetsons in technology. I'm pretty sure that's the plan for most watches in the future. Those that don't want a camera then don't buy because it WILL be there in the not-so-distant future.
because 80% of the time phone calls are around 5 seconds long...
('hey, i'm here'...'ok ill be right down'....)
People are stupid. If they designed the Apple watch it would be the size of the iphone and strapped to your wrist.
Camera on a watch makes no sense. Even facetime makes no sense. Why would I stare at a 1" screen when I can use my phone instead?
(Fast forward 1 year Apple adds a stupid camera to please the masses)
If people are concerned about privacy, keep in mind the Apple Watch can already take pictures by remotely controlling the iPhone camera. A user could conceal their iPhone and while appearing to use their Watch, they are actually remotely vewing through their iPhone lens and snapping pictures. This could be used to take pictures around corners or up skirts. Or just conceal the iPhone, place it in a shirt pocket set to record, no Apple Watch required. There are many easy ways of sneaking a picture with an ordinary camera phone, so I don't understand why people would be concerned about a camera on a watch, which would probably be the hardest way of taking a sneaky picture.
Really?
Lens in typical location on smart phone ≠ lens on the face of a watch.
If Apple finds a reason why FaceTime would be a functional, enjoyable experience on the watch, they may add it. I believe, however, that they'd have to find a way to make the camera lens invisible. Anything resembling a blemish on the watch face would be unacceptable to Jony, Marc, and team.
I think you missed the point -- the ugly bulge of the camera on the back of the iPhone has been criticized by many, and Jony Ive has even said it was compromised solution. Since Apple chose to compromise their aesthetics to offer a superior camera on the iPhone, if Apple wants to put FaceTime on the Watch, then they will make the same sort of aesthetic compromises, regardless of the device they're compromising -- it's the principle that's being compromised.
Besides, I've already shown a picture where it's perfectly acceptable without being invisible (which I doubt it can be).
FaceTime is inevitable. Frankly I can't believe they allow us to make and take calls on the thing. But that's proof enough for me, we'll have video as soon as it's possible to offer it.
To my understanding, Apple 'compromised aesthetics' in order to offer a thinner iPhone, not in order to offer a superior camera. The previous generation camera+lens also wouldn't have fit inside the case of an iPhone 6.
The watch may or may not get a FaceTime camera, but a visible lens on its sparkling, polished watch face isn't going to happen.
Watch isn't a phone, it's a piece of jewelry. The design priorities are completely different.This was the first reaction from my high school students as well. They wanted to take selfies with it. I kindly explained that if I'm going to take a picture, I'm gonna use the way better camera on the phone since it's always with me... They didn't understand 
This was the first reaction from my high school students as well. They wanted to take selfies with it. I kindly explained that if I'm going to take a picture, I'm gonna use the way better camera on the phone since it's always with me... They didn't understand
Sounds normal
Yup. And this is why Apple is going to do it. I remember Tim's delight as he pointed out how people are going to love using burst mode for taking selfies with the front facing camera. There's no other reason to incorporate this technology in the FaceTime camera.
Why should you take your phone out of your pocket to answer a FaceTime call, or take a quick photo of something you'll miss by the time you get your iPhone out? The ENTIRE point of the watch is to leave your phone out of sight unless you absolutely need to use it.
The Watch is full of useless technology ... sending your heartbeat to someone, sending doodles... so Apple really is going to force a customer to pull out there phone to snap a spontaneous selfie when they're touting the watch as the most personal device ever? I don't think so.
Nor will they care about putting a visible camera in the frame bezel which seems specifically designed for this purpose.
Ah. I was wondering how people thought they could compose a picture with a watch strapped on their wrist -- if you turn your wrist toward your subject, you can't see what is being framed. But selfies with a watch makes perfect sense.
Yes, but remember the days before the front facing camera? I and others used to take selfies very successfully without seeing the frame. Sometimes when I'm FaceTiming with someone on the phone I will forget I can switch to the back camera and just turn the phone around, and as long as I'm pointing the camera in the general direction of the subject it works out fine. I've also taken a few surreptitious photos when I didn't want people to know I was taking them, by just holding the camera at my side, pointed in the general direction, and using the volume buttons as triggers. The photos turn out pretty well.
So the point of the camera on the watch is just like everything else on the watch, it's meant to be quick and convenient. If you see something, point your wrist at it and take the photo, chances are it will be good enough. If you want to take a real photo, then you pull out your iPhone.
I can hear Tim Cook at the keynote now saying "We think our customers are just going to love taking impromptu photos with the watch". But of course we all know it will really be for selfies.