Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is a ridiculous rationale. It's fairly clear from the sales numbers that everyone who was going to buy the Watch likely have. So unless Apple is planning only to sell to that same 15 million group of initial customers, then there needs to be a new watch to generate new interest as soon as possible.

There's currently a well defined and finite pool of customers -- essentially everyone who has an iPhone 5 and up, which is reportedly somewhere around 500 million active users. Which means, Apple has only sold watches only to around 3% off the potential customer base -- a customer base to which Apple has exclusive audience to target advertising e-mails, along with apps for the watch its customers can't delete! To say those 500 million iPhone uses are unaware of the Watch is ridiculous. So it's either too expensive, doesn't do enough for the value, isn't fashionable enough, or something the customer isn't interested in adding to their current digital experience. All of these things Apple can address with updated hardware.



Have you ever Face Timed on an iPhone or iPad? Those things are heavier and much more difficult to hold for a long conversation, yet people do it all the time. The watch may actually be easier to hold up, to the extent it's even necessary. Moreover, the watch is meant to be a convenience to answer such a call, rather than fumbling for the phone. Then after the call is initiated, Hand Off seamlessly hands the call over to the iPhone, or possibly iPad or even Mac. It will be a great addition. If it's too much trouble for you -- DON'T USE IT!

I have in fact facetimed on a iPhone and an iPad. They aren't bad but I much prefer to FaceTime on the MacBook for the exact reason you mentioned. The iPad isn't as bad since it is easily prop-upable but the iPhone is better bad for long periods of time.
As far as the watch goes. I have an Apple Watch and I have made phone calls on it, it's not the best experience. Holding your arm up to get it nearish to your mouth is taxing on the shoulder after a couple minutes. That will be the same with the FT camera. Not to mention the quality can't be great and it will probably kill the battery.
 
Even if we get a substantially improved watch I predict existing owners unwilling or unable to upgrade will fill these forums with posts stating "it's a minor upgrade". Just as happened with early iPhone updates.
 
My wish-list for Apple products still has no place for wrist related tech unless it can completely replace an existing piece of tech. Help me stop carrying my iPhone and I'll buy one, but not until then. My wish-list instead consists of a 17" laptop with anti-glare screen, OSX Focus follows mouse and dual cameras on the iPhone separated enough for 3D. Wake me up when something worthy happens, ok? ;)

Heck, I would settle for TouchID on the MacBooks at this point....
 
The main thing id like in a new Apple Watch is accurate heart rate tracking during workout - its currently garbage. A real heart rate monitor says i'm doing 155bpm (which I bloody well feel) and the Apple Watch things i'm doing 55bpm...which lower than most peoples resting heart rate ffs!
Could you band be too loose? No insult being sent just an honest suggestion.
 
I think that the very fact that Apple has been promoting the Watch as being a personal, almost jewelry-like, item, should have forced them to create new versions even faster than a typical 1 year cycle. I get that they're shooting for a fine timepiece like product, where a classic design can live on for decades, but even still, the form factor being stuck at where it is feels stale to me already, because there are so many great looking timepieces on the market and constantly being introduced.

For Apple to think they can get away with just updated watch bands is a big miss in my opinion. They should have offered different case designs, colors and bands from the outset, learned which sells better and adjust designs moving forward from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I don't think it needs to be thinner, but I also don't think it needs a bigger battery. I always end my day with about 40-50% battery left. I'd be happy if they used any additional space to add in some new health sensors.
 
It's not going to be thinner. The Digital Crown is the height limiting dimension.

Right, because the digital crown size can't be adjusted? This is absolutely not a consideration as to how thin the watch can get.

I have in fact facetimed on a iPhone and an iPad. They aren't bad but I much prefer to FaceTime on the MacBook for the exact reason you mentioned. The iPad isn't as bad since it is easily prop-upable but the iPhone is better bad for long periods of time.
As far as the watch goes. I have an Apple Watch and I have made phone calls on it, it's not the best experience. Holding your arm up to get it nearish to your mouth is taxing on the shoulder after a couple minutes. That will be the same with the FT camera. Not to mention the quality can't be great and it will probably kill the battery.

I personally don't have any trouble taking calls on the watch. However, you make it sound like a FaceTime call is somehow going to be a more substantial power drain than making a phone call. At the end of the day Apple has enabled the ability to make calls on the watch which if used excessively will drain the watch in under 4 hours. So again, Apple doesn't expect you to make extended calls with the watch, it is a convenience that allows you to answer a particular type of call, and user discretion is required. This is the same reason adding GPS is red herring as far as the battery life debate is concerned.

As for holding the watch up to your ear, I'm not sure how that's any worse than holding the phone up to your ear. And there's no reason it has to be held that way. I often take FaceTime calls with my wrist resting on a table pointing the iPhone or iPad up at my face, looking down into the camera. Bottom line, your user experience is different than mine. I have no problem with it any of it. And again, I'm not worried about the quality of the video, since it's a 1" screen. The fact it isn't ideal is not a reason not to do it, since the camera can be used for many other purposes as well.
 
Am I the ONLY one that doesn't see the point of my watch having a camera? And I don't find the current generation to be too thick. What I would like to see is better battery life OR an upgraded processor. I'm afraid the thinness will come at the expense of better battery life or a faster processor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foxkoneko
I'm afraid the thinness will come at the expense of better battery life or a faster processor.
Thinness in their products has never sacrificed a faster processor. The battery life remains to be seen, but they've never made their battery life worse ... they've just improved the efficiency of their chips/OS to keep it around the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
How about they don't make it any thinner, but use that 'extra' space to put in better battery!

Now that would be great!
clearly you dont even own one. my AW has close to half a full charge when i set it on its charging dock next my phone when i go to sleep at night. and thats on the days i use it in the gym to track workouts for a couple hours.
[doublepost=1460142087][/doublepost]
I'm more interested in being 400% more useful and functional.
troll post who doesnt own one. we began getting value from Day 1 when we got ours. workout tracking, sedentary stand reminders, walk reminders, notifications, messaging without having to dig my phone out, and payments. its great. only complaint is speed -- i want a faster processsor.

buy one and try it before posting some time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
As long as the current banks fit it I'm OK with it. If they don't, it'll be the last wearable I buy from them.
 
Am I the ONLY one that doesn't see the point of my watch having a camera? And I don't find the current generation to be too thick. What I would like to see is better battery life OR an upgraded processor. I'm afraid the thinness will come at the expense of better battery life or a faster processor.
The S1 is a 28nm process, which is huge and ancient at this point (the A9 uses a 14 or 16 depending on the manufacturer).

Even dropping down to 20nm is going to be a massive efficiency boost for the watch, so luckily in this case you might get your cake and be able to eat it too.
 
clearly you dont even own one. my AW has close to half a full charge when i set it on its charging dock next my phone when i go to sleep at night. and thats on the days i use it in the gym to track workouts for a couple hours.
[doublepost=1460142087][/doublepost]
troll post who doesnt own one. we began getting value from Day 1 when we got ours. workout tracking, sedentary stand reminders, walk reminders, notifications, messaging without having to dig my phone out, and payments. its great. only complaint is speed -- i want a faster processsor.

buy one and try it before posting some time.
I'm with him on that one. He is not a troll, he is just stating the obvious for HIM and others like HIM! Right now there is no single KILLER feature. I have tried the AW (in case you asked) and I do want one but not at the moment. Just read through AW section and you will see how many people returned or are not happy with theirs for various reasons once the novelty wears off.
Don't get me wrong, its a nice device but its not where most people would like it to be. All the things you have posted are still very limited or not as useful as it sounds on the paper.
And again, I do want one but at this point its desire rather than need as it doesn't offer anything THAT useful. So I want more sensors and more development there before I purchase one. My hope is for AW 2.
If Apple is listening then I hope they will surprise us in september as it will be 2 years since they first showed it to us. Plenty of time to make it better in a lot of ways (unlike iPads etc that were on 1 year cycles). So, given the fact that Apple had 2 years I do hope AW 2 will be the one I will get.

Proper oxygen reading with accurate HR + other health sensors would be amazing start. No crap like camera or even gps. Camera is silly on a device like this and GPS will kill the battery in no time. No point to put a feature that is not optimised to be used fully and I do not want them to use the space instead of something that is actually more useful.

So he had a point, focus on 400% more useful as that is what will bring more customers. The more options and variety it has the better for everyone. Simple as that.
No trolling here, just sensible post from my point of view (and others by the looks of it)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
What reality do you live in?
Why oh why does the watch need an always on display when you are not looking at it all the time? Or do u sit and look at the time constantly? It comes on when you raise your wrist or tap it. That's the best solution to this non issue.

When did you last see a digital watch with a blank display. Exactly.
[doublepost=1460143225][/doublepost]
What reality do you live in?

The one where I don't buy Apple products with fundamental design flaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
The main thing id like in a new Apple Watch is accurate heart rate tracking during workout - its currently garbage. A real heart rate monitor says i'm doing 155bpm (which I bloody well feel) and the Apple Watch things i'm doing 55bpm...which lower than most peoples resting heart rate ffs!

Mine is within 1-2 beats of the treadmill at my gym. If my treadmill measures around 145 when I'm running, so will my watch.

It might be too loose, or something else.
 
How about they don't make it any thinner, but use that 'extra' space to put in better battery!

Now that would be great!

Yeah, but Apple's thinking is that people want thinner and lighter products, not more powerful, or with better batteries.
 
Unfortunately, it is also huge. Talk about something needing to be thinner.

Same product minus ABT-hardened features in the Forrunner 235 plus wrist HR. Running dynamics with the chest strap are awesome for people that actually run all this for $325 ;) Although I do wish they would enable Wifi on off switch at the user level less battery but could gain some more features.
 
Dear Apple,

When sales are lackluster, it's almost always your software. A thinner watch with the same middling software will not solve the problems with Apple Watch.

Love,

BWhaler
 
  • Like
Reactions: koigirl
Men's watches, especially at the quality end of the market, tend to be a 12+mm thick. The Rolex sub is 13mm, the Omega planet ocean is 15.7mm. I've worn both and neither strike me as being too thick. The Apple watch is already a thin men's watch at only 10mm. Any thinner and it'll start to feel rather dainty.

Watches are not consumer electronics, they're worn for style and statement value. If anything the Apple watch could do with getting larger.
 
Good, it needs to be thinner. However, until they can make it functional without having to have your phone nearby, I don't see the point.

I never understood the fascination with this. Who leaves the house without there phone? It's cute that you can answer the phone on the watch but it is not practicital and you can't hear the other person unless it's dead silent where you are. Also I do not want another data plan to pay for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foxkoneko
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.