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
Standard bluetooth is 30ft. That's the next room over. Assuming no interference.
----------
Yes really.
----------
Yes really.
Lol I got a good laugh reading this thread. 90% was essentially "Wrong", "Incorrect", "No, you're wrong", "He's Right"
I've been up for a little over 30 hours so perhaps I'm delerius, but I was rolling reading the entire first page of this thread.
I have this vision of you selecting WIFI, picking the appropriate network and typing in the password on the watch face.
We should have a vote on it. My vote is on the connects to phone only not a wifi network.
There would be drawbacks and benefits to each connection method. Wifi gives you range, Bluetooth LE gives you better battery life. I personally don't really understand why Apple would put wifi in the Watch and then limit it to ad-hoc connections to the phone; my phone is already connecting to wifi when I'm at home anyway.
----------
Since your Watch is essentially an accessory for your iPhone, I would assume that it would get the credentials for a wifi network from your phone rather than you having to connect it individually. If you use iCloud Keychain then this already basically happens between Apple devices.
I think you actually already answered the question in your first statement. WIFI is going to extend the distance that the phone can be away from the watch.
There is also a very logical reason not to allow it to connect to WIFI routers. The power utilized in constantly searching for WIFI network is very high. I always turn off wifi on my phone when I leave home to save battery drain.
Apple has also given the impression in some of their statements that it can use both blue tooth and AD Hoc Wifi at the same time and thereby increasing the speed.
If the Watch only connects to wifi when the phone does, though, using credentials supplied to it, then this wouldn't be an issue.
I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, but there are times where I can see an ad-hoc network might not be the best solution. Say I accidentally leave my phone in my car while going into a restaurant; with a BT connection, my watch will likely let me know when I've gone out of range and I'll be reminded to go and grab it. If it just establishes an ad-hoc wifi connection, then I might not be notified this change has taken place and both my phone and my watch are draining batteries without me realizing it. Sure, there may be some way that it notifies you; we just don't know. What I can tell you for sure is that my preference would be that it uses existing wireless rather than creating it's own connection, but who knows what it will really end up being.
If what the presenter says is accurate, how it works should be clear. He said with his home network that the range which his phone and watch would communicate would be longer than normal. For example, if he left his phone in another room, his watch would still be synced with his phone. Now why would he mention being at his home if it were just an ad hoc wifi network connection? Being at home implies that his phone is on his home's wifi network. Ergo, if his phone is connected successfully to a wifi network, his watch would learn the SSID, password, etc to connect automatically and talk to each other. Ad hoc is feasible but not ideal as your phone would not be able to connect to an Internet connected wifi network then. If what he says is true, I don't see any other feasible implementation of this extended range.
Ain't that the truth.
----------
Going to hate myself but....
No he didn't. Listen to it again. He said nothing about his home network. I made the same erroneous assumption. He was just using home as an example of someplace you might have your watch and iPhone separate.
If you want a good laugh read back this thread and you'll notice others having this exact same discussion.
I think I'm also going to call this quits and wait until the 24th
I'm not going to repeat what Uccle said, but some additional info:
1. Just knowing the SSID and password isn't always enough to be able to use the network. Hotels, for example, will often redirect you to a login page to enter additional authorization info before allowing you do use the network. My work and the school across the street both have guest networks that function the same way. The watch has no way of allowing you to interact with those login pages.
2. Apple already uses direct wi-fi connections for several things. A link has been posted several times in this thread that provides details about how Apple is using direct wi-fi connections for things like AirDrop, AirPlay, and Continuity. It makes much more sense for the watch to directly connect to the phone - this way wi-fi is being used to "seamlessly" increase the communication range between the watch and the phone.
3. It will save on battery life not having to deal with communicating with routers.
1. They could easily choose to ignore Wifi networks that require additional logins.
2. The antenna range on an access point is much longer than a phone acting as a hotspot. Your wifi router is probably in a centralized location in your housing. If your phone was left in the far left side of your place, and you and your watch are on the far right side of your place, etc. You get the point.
3. You do realize that if the watch connects to an ad hoc network via an iPhone the iPhone is the router. From the watch point of view, there is little to no difference is connecting to a wifi router or an ad hoc router in terms of battery life or from a networking perspective even.
1. Yes, they could. But then you have a subset of routers that won't work to extend the range, and people complaining that they can't leave their phone in their hotel room while they're down at the bar. A very contrived example, sure, but the point remains valid.
2. Effective range is based on the shortest distance both devices can send a signal. My router is in the basement - if the watch can't send a signal that far, then I could potentially be losing connection by having my phone and my watch in two separate rooms upstairs, even though they are easily within wi-fi range of each other. In my house, my phone and watch will pretty much always be closer to each other than either device and my router, and therefore be using less power to communicate directly.
3. Wi-fi is expensive in terms of battery life. Apple can optimize the communications between the watch and a very small number of iPhones. They can't do the same between the watch and every router ever made. I expect to see wi-fi being used very sparingly in an attempt to reduce battery draw.