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.
This Might Be A Dumb Question... (do I need have my iPhone close to me)
- Thread starter sjc83
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kevin Lynch at the 3/9 event does not confirm any ability for you to connect yourWatch to a WiFi, but is only talking about phone continuity handoff with a paired iPhone.
Now can someone post any info that the
AFAIU, nobody said that. Just the Watch and iPhone can connect together through a local wi-fi network, meaning wherever your house wi-fi range cover you will be good to go without the phone. You don't have to be worry about bluetooth range.
Will it be point to point? I don't know. But the way he's talking, my non-tech interpretation is wherever your local Wi-Fi range cover your Watch will connect, and I stand by that.
Last edited:
This is the main reason why I want the watch. I don't carry my phone with me when I'm home or at work, and I keep missing notifications.
Right now, I have an iPhone 6+ and a iPad mini 2.
When the watch comes out, my PLANS are...
- Leave the iPhone in the car in the garage, turned on so it can talk to the watch. I have a long commute to work and that's when it does most of its charging.
- Do everything else (games, movies, photos, etc) on the iPad and Watch.
When the watch comes out, my PLANS are...
- Leave the iPhone in the car in the garage, turned on so it can talk to the watch. I have a long commute to work and that's when it does most of its charging.
- Do everything else (games, movies, photos, etc) on the iPad and Watch.
It will be interesting to see what the range is on bluetooth. I assume this is the latest iteration of bluetooth which can have really good range if given enough power. But one has to think that the watch is trying to be really careful in the power allocation. If we assume a robust 20 foot range in all directions, including up and down stairs, then I guess it will cover a nice sized duplex apartment. (Note I live in NYC, so what I consider a nice sized apartment might be a lot smaller than what others would.)
I don't know anyone who carries their phone with them in their house. Everyone I know sets their phone down on a kitchen counter / shelf / something close to the entry door.
Maybe everyone I know is > 30, who treats their cell phones like a stationary home phone when they're home... so maybe that has something to do with it.
the way he's talking, my non-tech interpretation is wherever your local Wi-Fi range cover your Watch will connect, and I stand by that.
Why are you/we assuming the house he's talking about even has a wifi network? He didn't say you have to have a wireless network already in place in order for the watch and iPhone to communicate using wifi technology.
Because that's what non-techie like us understand, that everything most likely connect through Wi-Fi. I believe if the process is unusual, the presenter will incline to make it clearer.
Last edited:
Matrix07,
I have to admit I made the same (erroneous) assumption you made when I first saw the keynote. But if you will read the article (link posted several times but here it is again http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...ty-coax-advanced-features-from-bluetooth-wifi) it explains things in a way even us non-techie folk can understand.
Scroll down to the section "Apple Watch: the next frontier of continuity" where it states "The kind of features apple demonstrated, however, require more than basic Bluetooth tethering. That's why apple says the new watch packs wifi hardware even though it isn't designed to connect to your home's wifi network."
Seriously, read at least that section. It's interesting!
I have to admit I made the same (erroneous) assumption you made when I first saw the keynote. But if you will read the article (link posted several times but here it is again http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...ty-coax-advanced-features-from-bluetooth-wifi) it explains things in a way even us non-techie folk can understand.
Scroll down to the section "Apple Watch: the next frontier of continuity" where it states "The kind of features apple demonstrated, however, require more than basic Bluetooth tethering. That's why apple says the new watch packs wifi hardware even though it isn't designed to connect to your home's wifi network."
Seriously, read at least that section. It's interesting!
That is a great article and does a good job of explaining Apple's 'mysterious' services in layman's terms. It looks to be well researched and thought out.
Thank you. That's the conventional wisdom around here. It's from September last year though, long before the new Keynote so I use my common sense and stand by what I believe.
If I'm wrong then KL just made a bad presentation.
I use my common sense and stand by what I believe. If I'm wrong then KL just made a bad presentation.
This explains so much about these forums
But if it is a direct wifi connection between phone and watch, then wouldn't it work anywhere? Why the stress in the keynote on "when you are home"?
I mean, the keynote made it sound like the home wifi network is involved somehow, though it isn't explicitly stated that's the case.
In addition to that, he basically told you to forget about the bluetooth range. Then what range should we concern about? The range everyone knows is just our Wi-Fi. If he doesn't meant this then he should be explicit about it.
I agree 100%. That's what threw me too and caused many of us to assume it hooked up to our wifi. But that's because *we* have wifi...most people in the world don't. I'm guessing he just used that example because it was something most people could relate to. And, yes, I do think it will work that way anywhere. (I have a camera that connects to my iPhone using its own wifi hardware and it, indeed, does work anywhere...even places with zero Internet service.)
But, we'll see in April how well it works in our particular situations.
I posted this in a different thread, my it makes more sense here:
The author is just saying the same thing that Kevin Lynch said in his presentation, which says nothing about connecting to a wi-if network. In all fairness, that is probably what the author intends to say, in which case he is mistaken as well.
The entire demo by Kevin Lynch was intended to show how people might use the watch throughout the day. By saying it uses wi-if at home, he has misled people into thinking it uses their home network, when really it was just an example of a common case when people might not have their phone right with them. You could be in the middle of the woods and still be using wi-if to connect to the phone. Why limit the distance to bluetooth range except in the places that have a wi-if network you can log into?
Let's say that you're right and the watch can connect to a router. That means the watch gets its own IP address. What if you connect to a guest network (or a hotel network, etc) that require you to visit a webpage and agree to terms and conditions before you can use the network? The watch has no way to display that page. There are many similar cases where is doesn't make sense for the watch to have its own IP address, since it doesn't have a browser.
However, it does make sense for all communication to go through the phone. And Apple already does direct wi-if connections for other things, so I don't understand why it's so hard to imagine that is how the watch works as well.
The author is just saying the same thing that Kevin Lynch said in his presentation, which says nothing about connecting to a wi-if network. In all fairness, that is probably what the author intends to say, in which case he is mistaken as well.
The entire demo by Kevin Lynch was intended to show how people might use the watch throughout the day. By saying it uses wi-if at home, he has misled people into thinking it uses their home network, when really it was just an example of a common case when people might not have their phone right with them. You could be in the middle of the woods and still be using wi-if to connect to the phone. Why limit the distance to bluetooth range except in the places that have a wi-if network you can log into?
Let's say that you're right and the watch can connect to a router. That means the watch gets its own IP address. What if you connect to a guest network (or a hotel network, etc) that require you to visit a webpage and agree to terms and conditions before you can use the network? The watch has no way to display that page. There are many similar cases where is doesn't make sense for the watch to have its own IP address, since it doesn't have a browser.
However, it does make sense for all communication to go through the phone. And Apple already does direct wi-if connections for other things, so I don't understand why it's so hard to imagine that is how the watch works as well.
I think it was just an example since for instance you are likely to leave your iPhone in the kitchen while you are in the den. Using an at home example because it is the most familiar, easy to imagine and likely to happen.
I, for one, didn't know that "Apple uses direct wifi for other things" (and btw, what other things do they use it for?). Not knowing something exists makes it hard to imagine that the watch uses it as well.
As I mentioned above my iPhone connects to my camera directly by wifi. I can pair them and then use the iPhone as a remote shutter release, or transfer photos from the camera to the iPhone...all over wifi, even where there is NO internet connectivity of any kind. Like when I go hiking.
I thought that when you did that, the iPhone disconnected from any other wifi network? Like, say you are home, the iPhone can connect to either your home network or to your camera, but not to both.
It is probably a point to point WiFi like the iPhone to
Watch will be.EDIT: After rereading I think I misunderstood your question. I think you are asking if the iPhone can connect and use 2 WiFi's at the same time. Great question and is a thinker.
The evidence seems to be yes since this is the way AirPlay, AirDrop and Continuity work. The point to point is an ad hoc and invisible (no SSID) WiFi. It would be independent of your router's (home) WiFi but could be operating at the same time.
Any WiFi 'experts' care to chime in?
Last edited:
I'm not sure I quite understand the question but if you are asking if the phone, when connected to the camera by wifi (not through a wifi network) does it disconnect from all other networks. Well...dang, I'm not sure. I know it doesn't disconnect from the cell network, but, frankly, I've never checked about wifi since it wouldn't be important to what I was doing at the moment. Yes, I have to select the camera in the wifi selection so perhaps it does disconnect from my home wifi...maybe I'll play around with it. Even if it does, however, I'd be surprised if apple's implementation works that way.
Last edited:
OK, I hate it when you guys actually make me have to think
In Sony's implementation of p2p wifi it does indeed require the iPhone to drop other wifi connections (in my unscientific experiment). But the tasks are discrete and quick and once accomplished it reverts to the previous wifi connection. Unlike the camera, however, it looks like the watch uses Bluetooth to establish the initial connection then uses wifi when required.
While the watch also ("apparently" for those of you still unconvinced) uses a direct wifi connection to the iPhone the implementation is *much* more sophisticated. If you read the appleinsider article all the way through, especially all the bits about connectivity, you'll see that it is much more intelligent/nuanced/intermittent. That type of connection would surely allow, let's say, someone to stream a video over their home wifi network on their iPhone while still being able to send notifications overs its direct wifi connection to the watch. But this is beyond my knowledge as I am not a networking/communications guru. Interesting tho', huh? Good question.
In Sony's implementation of p2p wifi it does indeed require the iPhone to drop other wifi connections (in my unscientific experiment). But the tasks are discrete and quick and once accomplished it reverts to the previous wifi connection. Unlike the camera, however, it looks like the watch uses Bluetooth to establish the initial connection then uses wifi when required.
While the watch also ("apparently" for those of you still unconvinced) uses a direct wifi connection to the iPhone the implementation is *much* more sophisticated. If you read the appleinsider article all the way through, especially all the bits about connectivity, you'll see that it is much more intelligent/nuanced/intermittent. That type of connection would surely allow, let's say, someone to stream a video over their home wifi network on their iPhone while still being able to send notifications overs its direct wifi connection to the watch. But this is beyond my knowledge as I am not a networking/communications guru. Interesting tho', huh? Good question.
Last edited:
OK, I hate it when you guys actually make me have to think
Well, if nothing else, I think we've proved that the original question wasn't so dumb after all!
I haven't had time to read the article yet, hopefully I can follow it -- sometimes they go into such technical detail, it flies over my head. :S