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.
Up to 40% Thinner Apple Watch 2 Predicted to Debut at WWDC in June
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1) For a camera to recognize your face is looking at it, it has to be pointed at your face. The current mechanism to light up the watch works pretty well. Unintended activation has negligible effect on battery life, plus you can flick it on in the dark without it being pointed toward your face or eyes. You're creating convoluted, energy-hungry solutions for a problem that doesn't really exist.
2) and 3) The watch already does exist "exclusively of one [well, two] easy to manufacture case design with an elaborate array of bands and faces." There are two 'movement' sizes and three options for case materials. There are lots of bands and faces, with undoubtedly more to come. Making hardware in an endless array of configurations is anathema to Apple's core business and engineering philosophy. It's clear you don't get that, so no point in debating it with you.
Sure... I've had it since whatever the earliest possible shipping rate was, and yeah watchOS 1 was a shocker! But since 2 I've been pleased with performance, unlike many the 5 complications, 4 load their apps instantly and the 3rd party within 1 to 1.5 secs (Spark)
It is interesting to read all the different opinions. Some want a thicker watch, some want a thinner one, some bigger face, some round some want the watch always on, some don't. You have to figure this is why there so many different tradional watches. To me, thin would be nice. THe battery always last more than I need, so I would give up battery for a thinner watch. The one thing that everyone seems to agree upon is that it needs to be faster.
I have read a number of people talking about water resistance, I believe it is already rather water resistant. There have been many tests where the watch was under water for extended time, sometimes at pretty good depths. I know I wash mine under running water almost every day, I don't think swimming with it is an issue at all.
I have read a number of people talking about water resistance, I believe it is already rather water resistant. There have been many tests where the watch was under water for extended time, sometimes at pretty good depths. I know I wash mine under running water almost every day, I don't think swimming with it is an issue at all.
That would be terrific, and tesla too,, unfortunately nobody seems to be making any huge gains. As of yet. Putting sapphire on everything and getting weeks out of the iPhone or tesla cars would be terrific. Need more scientists to science!
[doublepost=1460254839][/doublepost]
I would love this function for comparing glucose levels and correlation with seizure / narcolepsy stuff I suffer from.. Wife too, we both "quit" sugar years ago to support a diabetic relative and we lost our tolerance! Sugar is a drug, I advise everyone to cut that down and use something more fun..
Unless the v1 has been getting tested out by medical device authorities I doubt the function will ever be switched on- tho that may happen once the year or two long trials have finished.
I have trawled Xcode myself trying to find "the magic switches" but they are def locked away from everyone except maybe hex editing assembly code magicians.
I haven't. I would think that it may take additional sensors to be accurate. Otherwise, it would be setting up the exercise, then measuring - setting the next exercise then measuring...on and on. That wouldn't be any fun.
Did you read my sig? So yeah I've seen one. lol
I also have a 51.5 mm watch to compare it to.
"Round would destroy space for complications"
I admit that it would definitely take re-imagining apps to take advantage of the space but I'm sure it can be done.
Watch faces have been round for eons and makers made it work especially considering how confined and rigid a space like that is. So I'm sure todays software engineers using an infinitely more flexible digital display can make it work.
I wouldn't want to try adapting apps to a circular screen..
Variable size and constraints are great for development and unknown screen sizes and resolutions, going round screen would pretty much destroy all current apps. Or run them in a tiny square in the middle.
If Apple doubled the res ala the retina jump, or changed the screen size anything I've created will still be fine and run, might have to make a couple new app icons for a native pixel size; going to a round interface I probably would not bother trying and if they offer both round and squared developers will go crazy or double down on square, treat round as second class. Imagine trying to fit an app like Lifeline onto a round screen Lol.
https://imgur.com/a/SIFyA
Last edited:
Please do explain how you are going to see the watch face if it's not pointed at you? Oh never mind, you really don't get it.
You clearly don't understand anything about fashion. So no need to further debate anything further with you.
Last edited:
That would be via the new iTelepath feature. But we can't discuss that further because the product hasn't been released yet and you folks aren't under NDA.
If the battery can last 24 hours i'm sold.
The current one is just too chunky for me. I don't mind that i need a phone nearby, i always have my phone anyway, but a bunch of the watch features are useful for me, stuff the phone can't do.
The current one is just too chunky for me. I don't mind that i need a phone nearby, i always have my phone anyway, but a bunch of the watch features are useful for me, stuff the phone can't do.
I'm not buying it unless the battery is rate for 25 hours of use. Because, as everyone knows, there are never enough hours in the day to get work done.
Heh. 48 hours is probably actually a better figure to be honest.
Basically i charge my devices every night but if i was to go out on a bender and not make it home (end up staying overnight at a friend's/in a ditch/etc.) or am on an international flight, etc. then it would be nice if it could deal with that.
Current model does 18-24-28 easy.. Usually drops a bit if you work out a lot. Or walk fast / lots of active work then it starts to 'ping' your pulse more, still will easily make it to 11/12 at night before hitting anywhere near 20%. If I ever pass out Til 7am it's usually still got at least 10%_ can charge it to 100% while showering and usual morning routines before having to go to work or whatever
Yeah, i just want that life with less thickness
If apple can maintain that sort of battery life (or at least 24-36 hrs) in a smaller form factor i'm sold. I ride a motorcycle with gloves, jacket, etc. and something like the current one is just too bulky for that.The bike is actually a big reason i want to try it out - for the haptic feedback GPs...
I thought they'd keep the same thickness (it looks really thick in photos but in store you realise how small it is) and add GPS + Camera.
Thinner? What we need is better battery life, GPS and 3G/4G connection + a better graphical user interface.
I don't understand why my AW runs out of power so fast, if I only look at the time a few times a day and not use it for playing music, answering phone calls, using Siri etc. Is it the heart beat monitor? Can I turn it off?
I don't understand why my AW runs out of power so fast, if I only look at the time a few times a day and not use it for playing music, answering phone calls, using Siri etc. Is it the heart beat monitor? Can I turn it off?
Last edited:
It drives invention. Chips has to be smaller, circuts have to be smaller and so on. While power is increasing. Than you can think about batterielife and usabilty, thinness is just a drive motor and it makes sense if you look it on that way.
I'm a deep sea diver and I was thinking of buying one of these instead of the lead lined boots I wear to keep me on the sea bed. But as an ankle weight? I could tie my shoelaces at maximum depth and read the time simultaneously AND check my pulse and step count. So. Let's make the Watch 2 even bigger. Heavier. And chunkier. And if they make left and right hand versions then Diver based clientele will end up buying two each to ensure equilibrium of balance per side. Result!
I really hope they don't put a FaceTime camera in this thing btw. I wouldn't use it, but my goodness perverts will! Seriously though I would rather more space for battery, process, sensors. So ready for gen 2.
It's blisteringly obvious, but since you asked: Strap your Apple watch on. Have a seat. Relax. Rest your forearm comfortably on your knee, with the watch face up, more or less horizontal. Flick your wrist a little (it doesn't take much) and the watch lights up. Can you see it? Why yes. Yes, you can.
Now, holding that relaxed, comfortable posture, imagine there's a little FaceTime camera at the top of the watch, right there above 12 o'clock. Which way is that camera pointed? Yes, that's right. It's pointed up at the ceiling. If, in your proposed scenario, it were searching for your face to allow the watch to light up, would it find your face? No, no it wouldn't. It would find the ceiling, and your watch wouldn't light up. With your "fix," you'd have to raise and turn your wrist until the camera could see you.
There are lots of scenarios where you can see the watch face without it being pointed directly at your face. Riding a bicycle. Driving a car. Relaxing on the couch. The list goes on. Your idea decreases user convenience, plus constantly turning on a camera and activating face recognition software would expend more energy than it would save in reduced times lighting the watch when it wasn't needed. (Never mind that your scenario would probably light up the watch whenever your arm is moving and the camera sees other people's faces. Who needs battery life anyway?) Apple's engineers are much too smart to adopt such an unworkable idea. Maybe you should see if Microsoft is developing a watch. Maybe they would be more aggressively fashion forward, too. Give that a try. They're in Redmond, WA, I think.
Doubt it. If you want to do FaceTime you're focused on the device, that's NOT what the apple watch is for. It's for glancing at and alerting you to things while you're busy with other things. If you're going to be staring at it, you're not busy doing something else, and that's where you pull out your phone.
I don't mind that it needs a nearby iPhone to work. I have my phone with me all the time anyway. But i can't always use it, e.g., if i'm riding the bike, in a meeting, driving or whatever.
Those are the situations the watch makes sense, not staring at it on public transport or trying to browse the internet or video conference with it...