Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I have never seen any statistics regarding the accuracy of his predictions. I can only go on what I can remember. As I said I remember he called the iPad 4 correct, he called the pricing on the iPhone SE correct (US$400 to US$500) but he got the iPhone 5S at US$300 wrong.

He seems to have a better track record that Digitimes or the other "analysts" that MacRumors quotes.

I've seen some run-downs of his predictions. He gets many things right, but quite a few wrong, too. He benefits from confirmation bias. People remember the accurate predictions, but will tend to forget the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
1) So... when it's dark your watch won't light up. When your watch isn't pointed directly at your face, it won't light up, etc. The existing accelerometer already detects subtle movements better than a facetime camera would be able to do. Also, having a camera constantly on looking for your face would burn more battery than your idea would conceivably save. Plus, I'm a little skeptical about the utility of a camera on the watch for facetime anyway, because the way most people look down at their watch, the image they'd be sending out over facetime is going to be an unflattering look right up the nose.

2) Part of how apple makes things work well is by limiting the hardware variables. Having a half-dozen or more versions of the shape and size would introduce too many hardware variables; so not gonna happen. The fickle world of fashion is handled by wristband options and watch face options.

3) Titanium is swell, but I think Apple has quite a lot invested in their aluminum alloys.

1) Well there is such a thing as infrared which would probably yield better accuracy anyway. It doesn't have to be pointed at your face, it has to recognize that the face is looking at it -- it sees the eyes and registers where they are pointed. The existing accelerometer is unreliable as is, leading to many turning theirs off. And the camera wouldn't be on constantly, just when it detects a subtle movement, and only for a split second. In the end though, other smart watches offer always on displays already with similar if not better battery life than the Watch, so that's ultimately the best way to go. The real win with the FaceTime camera in this regard is to know when to shut off.

Your concern about people looking up your nose is yours. I FaceTime with people all the time with the device in my lap, or holding it below my face pointed up at an angle. As do many people who use the technology, because it gets just as uncomfortable holding a phone or iPad at face level as well. But again, it's about convenience while you locate your phone, not draining the battery having a lengthy conversation on a wrist device from unflattering angles, just as having lengthy phone calls is not practical for the same reasons. You're mostly manufacturing reasons against it here, rather than embracing Tim Cook's inner child when he gushed about the "Dick Tracy" features, and adding something purely for the customer's delight assuming they didn't have to compromise other features. The selfie alone, to which Apple is committed 110% is worth adding the FaceTime camera, whether you have use for it or not.

2) I couldn't care less if Apple does or doesn't offer many different model options. The point is, if Apple wants to truly compete and be a major player in the fashion wearable market, they will have to address the fashion variables that have existed in the jewelry and horological markets for centuries. Bands and faces are not enough, if they were, then the watch world would exist exclusively of one easy to manufacture case design with an elaborate array of bands and faces. It's clear you don't get that, so no point in debating it with you. Apple either steps up, or they don't. Or, perhaps the Hermes co-brand is a harbinger of things to come. Perhaps Apple will become the "movement" provider for some exclusive partners who design watch cases to incorporate Apple's hardware, as one way to deal with it. But it will happen, or Apple will have to settle for a small slice of the fashion smart watch market, especially if they produce one model and leave it on the market for 2 years at a time. The original design is already long in the tooth as far as fashion goes, having been in the public eye for over 18 months now since it was first unveiled and showcased at Colette in Paris. And now they're talking another 3-6 months?

3) Apple loves their alloys. And Aluminum is the least expensive option they offer. Stainless steel is the main metal they use for the watch, and then there's 18k gold. But sure, go ahead and believe Apple won't produce watches in any other alloys besides aluminum, despite the fact they are staples of the watch business. I chose to believe otherwise based on what Apple has done in the past and is doing now.
 
Last edited:
They can make it as thin as they want. Paying 400 dollars for a gadget watch made in Taiwan is like someone asking for 17 dollars a pound for Manchego made in New Jersey - Nonstarter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I own a couple of substantial mechanical watches already as well as the Apple watch, and I'm not clamoring for it to be any thinner.

I might would have been tempted by new features.

IMG_1465.jpg L1010017.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
How about they don't make it any thinner, but use that 'extra' space to put in better battery!

Now that would be great!
AMEN! Any decent woman will tell you it ain't about size it's about functionality.
[doublepost=1460151219][/doublepost]
I'm a Watch owner. The Watch doesn't need to be any thinner. It needs to be faster with more HealthKit tie-ins other than movement and heartbeat.

It needs to be a LOT of things, but the LAST thing it needs to be is thinner.
Absolutely YES
[doublepost=1460151283][/doublepost]
They can make it as thin as they want. Paying 400 dollars for a gadget watch made in Taiwan is like someone asking for 17 dollars a pound for Manchego made in New Jersey - Nonstarter.

And so speaks the star of "Dumb and Dumber"
 
Are you stalking me like?

No, that conversation simply destroyed your reputation. That's why I bring it up.

So you don't think Apple should improve battery life?

It depends. what are you going to trade it for? If improving the battery life means a 5lbs watch, then no. You have to go into specifics. Saying "I want more battery life" is like saying "I want more money". If I give you 1c for 2 hours of work, you have more money (goal accomplished). Does that make you happy?

You don't think Apple should make the use of the iWatch display more power efficient? That's a very strange attitude to have.

It's Apple Watch.
 
I'm jealous that you can wear your's that long! I put mine on as soon as I get up in the morning.... workout.... then I have to charge it (I use the workout app).... then, if I'm lucky, I can make it til bed time. it's about 50-50 that I get the "low power" notice shortly before bed. at least once a week I lose power completely before going to bed....

the past 2 days I've had 2 watches to wear.... I put on the original when I got home from work then wore it all night with the useless sleep app... and through my workout in the morning.... I didn't have much power left after that! then I put it on the charger and put the new rose gold watch on to wear to work for the day....

so ya... I REALLY REALLY want better batterly life!

it's thin enough for me.... GIVE ME BATTERY LIFE, PLEASE!

Whaat? you have to charge after your morning workout??
My watch makes it thru the day including workout with 50% spare battery at times!

I sometimes wear it thru the night and charge it in the morning while I'm getting ready for the day.

.
 
Nice, Watch is the one Apple product that needs to be thinner.
Would make sense if they making major changes to watchOS to debut it at WWDC.

Thinner, are you mad?
First how will that work and preserve battery life.
Have you looked at the watch industry. The trend is bigger. 48 to 50mm minimum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
I'm jealous that you can wear your's that long! I put mine on as soon as I get up in the morning.... workout.... then I have to charge it (I use the workout app).... then, if I'm lucky, I can make it til bed time. it's about 50-50 that I get the "low power" notice shortly before bed. at least once a week I lose power completely before going to bed....

the past 2 days I've had 2 watches to wear.... I put on the original when I got home from work then wore it all night with the useless sleep app... and through my workout in the morning.... I didn't have much power left after that! then I put it on the charger and put the new rose gold watch on to wear to work for the day....

so ya... I REALLY REALLY want better battery life!

it's thin enough for me.... GIVE ME BATTERY LIFE, PLEASE!

Really strange.. I go to bed 8 out of 10 days with a little more than 50% battery left. Also, when I workout during the day (max. 45min) WITH the workout app I still go to bed with a minimum 20% battery left. I put on my watch when I get up at 8am and wear it continuously until I go to bed between 11pm and 1am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paul4339
Really strange.. I go to bed 8 out of 10 days with a little more than 50% battery left. Also, when I workout during the day (max. 45min) WITH the workout app I still go to bed with a minimum 20% battery left. I put on my watch when I get up at 8am and wear it continuously until I go to bed between 11pm and 1am.

how fast does it take to charge your watch? ... for me it's seems like my apple watch charges really fast.

.
 
This is the first of the design flaws in the rev 1 iWatch. Thanks for listening, Apple.

The other two for a reminder are:

2) Battery life a minimum of a week.
3) Always on display.

Then I might consider buying one.

Always on for those moments you're not even looking at the display ... so useful
 
No way. Unless they've literally invented a new battery this has to be impossible.
The processor they use is old and large. They can find space savings there and no doubt in other places. I don't know about a week longer but that forty percent reduction could give dramatically improved battery
 
Thinner but they didn't say anything about being wider. Haha
Battery will be the same like with every phone. Glad I waited for the second gen.
 
You are not thinking different. They could just remove the battery and make the thinnest watch ever. Also it could have a single hand, only for hours, to be more elegant. This is thinking different.

No, thinking different would be realizing that time is an illusion. That crows like shiny things. That Apple marketing is basically anti-zen. That's "thinking different".
[doublepost=1460155164][/doublepost]
It's been clear since day one that Apple is to a certain extent targeting the 'fashion' market, and thin is a necessity there.

It needs to be sufficiently different enough from gen1 that everyone can tell if you're wearing the old (no longer cool) or new watch.
 
While I do not think products like the iPhone need to get any thinner, the Apple Watch really does. It's so bulky at the moment and I do not care if they sacrifice some of the battery life if it doesn't look like I'm wearing a bulky heartbeat monitor 24/7.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.