Up to 40% Thinner Apple Watch 2 Predicted to Debut at WWDC in June

[SteveW928]

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.

I'm not a Watch owner, and it would have to be thinner before I'd consider it. But, more importantly, it has to actually do something of use to me. And, then based on what folks are saying here, seems like it needs to be faster, have longer battery life, etc.

IMO, it as to do more when untethered from the phone. If it had GPS, that might be useful when out hiking or biking to track distance, speed, etc. Or, if it were a good independent music/podcast player, that might have some use. But, as just a sidekick to a phone, I can just use the phone. Unless, of course, I wanted a watch anyway, which I really don't.

I'm a gadget geek, and have owned a heck of a lot of Apple products. This is one of the few that I don't even really want yet.... at pretty much any price.

 

[iThingsGurl]

They all have e-ink displays to allow this to happen. You're not going to get it with OLED or LCD, probably ever.

The Apple Watch could easily have a basic always on time, it would lower the battery life, and design wise the clock digital time would need to move around the screen to stop burn in - so they probably decided against it for these two reasons.

Yes and as pointed out, there are some watches that can do that - its not quite interesting its a basic anti burn in technique Plasma Screens have used for years. I wouldn't want my watch on all the time anyway emitting light, it'd be extremely annoying.

It's intriguing that you first make case for how we're "not going to get it with OLED or LCD, probably ever", and how the burn-in makes it even less likely design wise, yet when pointed out how the competition may take the initiative based on their implementation on AMOLEDs, you say it has been there for years and in actuality, you wouldn't use the feature - as if changing goalposts every time.

Having said that, you say you would prefer to not have your smartwatch's screen to remain always-on. I respect that. There are many reasons why a smartwatch remaining always-on may not be favourable - given how personal messages, emails, bank app pop-ups, etc may readily be read by onlookers just by a sway of hand - not to mention the constant distraction caused by the brilliantly lit screen above and beyond all, for a watch may be "always-on", but it doesn't mean the bearer is "always-looking". Hence, if that feature is made available, I wouldn't be surprised if there are others too who'd prefer to leave it turned off.

 

[dannys1]

You know, turning your wrist so a watch's display comes on, whether it's a small subtle movement or a frustrated larger twist that we see people make

Turning on that way is never perfect. There will always be positions from which any watch will ignore the movement. Likewise, there will be movements that turn it on when you didn't want it to.

Always-on watches mostly just change the brightness level (*), so it still has some of that frustration at times, but far, far fewer times than a sometimes-on watch.

(*) With thousands of watch faces to choose from, each often with many options, there are of course also Android faces that stay on the same brightness all the time. For example, the stock LG-R face is like that. It's one of my favorites for my daytime watch, but of course not the face I use at night. That one is much dimmer.

Can't say i've ever seen people "flicking their wrist" nor is it something I do, if I look and it doesn't come on I just tap the screen - did you realise you could do that?

Anyway, it seems like you're sold on your Android watch anyway so i'm not sure why you're bothered what the Apple Watch does. Everyones happy.
[doublepost=1460373449][/doublepost]

It's intriguing that you first make case for how we're "not going to get it with OLED or LCD, probably ever", and how the burn-in makes it even less likely design wise, yet when pointed out how the competition may take the initiative based on their implementation on AMOLEDs, you say it has been there for years and in actuality, you wouldn't use the feature - as if changing goalposts every time.

Having said that, you say you would prefer to not have your smartwatch's screen to remain always-on. I respect that. There are many reasons why a smartwatch remaining always-on may not be favourable - given how personal messages, emails, bank app pop-ups, etc may readily be read by onlookers just by a sway of hand - not to mention the constant distraction caused by the brilliantly lit screen above and beyond all, for a watch may be "always-on", but it doesn't mean the bearer is "always-looking". Hence, if that feature is made available, I wouldn't be surprised if there are others too who'd prefer to leave it turned off.

I'm not moving the goalposts - the original person who said they want always on, was not on about a minimal implementation that moves around to prevent screen burn (and by been around for years, I did clearly mean the way Plasma TV's have used it as they suffered so badly with burn in, any OLED screen has just adopted this technique...hell I am wrong here its not even a technique, we've had screensavers that stop the screen showing the same image to prevent burn in since the 80's!) and just shows the time. They meant they want their normal Apple watch to be always on and do all the things you just described could be hazardous with that situation like show notifications etc AND last for an entire week - its not going to happen for many years.

Any "always on" feature enabled on the Apple Watch will be like the low power mode with just time that moves around to prevent screen burn at the lowest brightness setting. If people find that useful then sure, go for it but personally looking at the watch to see the time works just fine 95% of the time for me and its the full watch face I want to see.

A better feature to be honest would be a way to force touch the home screen and get some option to disable the screen all together for X amount of time (eg 2 hours whilst in the cinema) cos at the minute you have to jump through settings to do that.

 

[sracer]

Glad to hear that there is a possible update to the aWatch. I won't consider buying one until it is basically like my iPod Nano 6G "iWatch" but with auto-on and video playback capability.

 

[jbachandouris]

Glad to hear that there is a possible update to the aWatch. I won't consider buying one until it is basically like my iPod Nano 6G "iWatch" but with auto-on and video playback capability.

Then odds are you're never getting one. Battery technology is nowhere near able to provide day long battery life AND video playback.

 

[iGeek2014]

I have to say (for a 1st gen product) AW isn't too bad but could be infinitely better.

It would be good if I could use it independently from my iPhone (especially if I happened to leave my iPhone behind somewhere).

For me I'd like to see further refinements within WatchOS.

Sure the latest version works a lot better than the previous iterations but there are still a few quirks that bug the hell of me.

 

[Precision Gem]

Well, I do love my Apple Watch, and if the next generation comes out thinne and faster, I will upgrade. I wear the watch every day, all day, and take out my phone much much less now.

 

[sracer]

Then odds are you're never getting one. Battery technology is nowhere near able to provide day long battery life AND video playback.

That makes no sense.

 

[kdarling]

Can't say i've ever seen people "flicking their wrist" nor is it something I do, if I look and it doesn't come on I just tap the screen - did you realise you could do that?

Sure, I've brought up touch before as a way to subtly turn on a watchface.

However, if you've never seen anyone flick a smartwatch to turn it on, or never done it yourself, then they and you have never been in a one-handed position. Or maybe you use your nose?

Anyway, it seems like you're sold on your Android watch anyway so i'm not sure why you're bothered what the Apple Watch does. Everyones happy.

I'm responding to your comments about always-on watch faces.

If someone doesn't have the option, then they might not know how useful it can be.

If the Apple Watch allowed it, I think there are plenty of people who would find it useful, from mothers to doctors to athletes to the normal person.

Cheers!

 

[jephrey]

I've used an Apple watch but don't own one. I just don't really wear a watch. After using the watch though, I thought it'd be alright to have one, not a strong desire but it was cool. So I started weighing what I liked and disliked about the watch and one thing I dislike is the thickness. I haven't had to deal with the battery issues and only wore it for half-a-day. I didn't find a killer app (but I did like the health stuff). I'm not sure if the thinner watch pushes me into the buy category by itself but it's a step in the right direction(as long as the other features don't suffer).

 

[urbanslaughter1997]

Couldn't Apple invent a better battery technology? This would revolutionize the smart watch industry, not make Apple another lost in the weeds.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, to describe Apple as "another lost in the weeds [of the smartwatch market] is kind of ridiculous. They are the leader in market share. I would not consider that, "lost."
[doublepost=1460384349][/doublepost]

I do refer to it (watch) while weight-lifting/training, and the readings seem to correlate with my exertions. For instance, when doing heavy leg presses of 12 reps (340+ pounds), my heart rate hits 160 - 180+. I check in between sets so that I have an idea of what is what in terms of bpm and exertion. One thing that is interesting is that I am coming to be aware of what my bpm rate 'feels' like -- meaning that I can say to myself, 'wow, I am feeling breathless, I can feel my heart pounding, I must be at over 160+ bpm). I have only just started to use the apple watch routinely for this monitoring during exercise, so I'm still becoming comfortable and aware of checking between sets. I've also been using the timer/stopwatch to allow for one minute to one and a half minutes between sets. What really is a pain point for me is that I don't have any way to gauge number of calories expended while weight training! I use the apple watch 'exercise' app (and later on my phone, MyFitnessPal) to monitor and estimate calories burned per activity -- but there are only settings for cardio activities. I have to set "Other" during weight training, which just tracks the bmp and minutes per session. Do you know of an app that one can use for non-cardio activities?
[doublepost=1460228003][/doublepost]
I'm pretty sure that had to do with the FDA determining that a fitness app would be considered a 'medical device' if it were to do something like glucose monitoring, and that would then require the hideously lengthy and expensive FDA review and certification process which all medical devices receive. It was a major setback for Apple - at least that's how I would have seen it if this were my product. So, they had to rollback some of their intended functions -- which were only planned of course, since the current capabilities don't include anything which could monitor glucose.

Not to mention the fact that the technology for a viable glucose monitor on a watch just simply isn't there yet. I wear an invasive Continuous Glucose Monitor all the time right now. The accuracy just isn't there. If they were to use a non-invasive optical monitor I can't imagine it would be accurate at all, rendering it nearly useless.

 

[cliffster82]

If you still need to have a phone to make it functional, still not going to catch on. Keep trying

I get this. But in reality any smartwatch needs a device to hook up to, until cellular antennas in watches go mainstream. I rely on the watch for activity tracking, and that functionality still works when my phone is out of range. So yes it loses notifications but it still tells the time and tracks movement/exercise/heart rate. You can also do plenty of other things without the phone, e.g. alarm, timer, track workout, Bluetooth music, stopwatch, loaded apps.. it's actually pretty good.

 

[Mac 128]

I get this. But in reality any smartwatch needs a device to hook up to, until cellular antennas in watches go mainstream. I rely on the watch for activity tracking, and that functionality still works when my phone is out of range. So yes it loses notifications but it still tells the time and tracks movement/exercise/heart rate. You can also do plenty of other things without the phone, e.g. alarm, timer, track workout, Bluetooth music, stopwatch, loaded apps.. it's actually pretty good.

Cellular is over rated. I use the watch almost exclusively without an iPhone. Simply entering the range of any wifi hotspot I've previously connected to enables virtually full functionality without the phone anywhere near. The reality is, this is acceptable for all but going for a hike in the mountains, something during which an iPhone may not have reception either.

I would argue not offering different case designs is taking a bigger toll on sales than lack of interdependence from the iPhone, though that would certainly open the potential customer base a bit wider, but still limited mostly to those interested in a smart watch.

 

[Michael Goff]

I'm not a Watch owner, and it would have to be thinner before I'd consider it. But, more importantly, it has to actually do something of use to me. And, then based on what folks are saying here, seems like it needs to be faster, have longer battery life, etc.

IMO, it as to do more when untethered from the phone. If it had GPS, that might be useful when out hiking or biking to track distance, speed, etc. Or, if it were a good independent music/podcast player, that might have some use. But, as just a sidekick to a phone, I can just use the phone. Unless, of course, I wanted a watch anyway, which I really don't.

I'm a gadget geek, and have owned a heck of a lot of Apple products. This is one of the few that I don't even really want yet.... at pretty much any price.

Why thinner? Thinner right now means either slower or worse battery life, the second doubly so if you want integrated GPS.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, to describe Apple as "another lost in the weeds [of the smartwatch market] is kind of ridiculous. They are the leader in market share. I would not consider that, "lost."
[doublepost=1460384349][/doublepost]
Not to mention the fact that the technology for a viable glucose monitor on a watch just simply isn't there yet. I wear an invasive Continuous Glucose Monitor all the time right now. The accuracy just isn't there. If they were to use a non-invasive optical monitor I can't imagine it would be accurate at all, rendering it nearly useless.

Is there even any kind of glucose-monitoring which can be done without a puncture? I thought that I had read about something a few months ago, though it probably won't be available in market for a few years, what with testing, etc.

 

[lordofthereef]

Watch stores at least a few hours of music. You need to read more..

For cycling accuracy there's a few devices you can hook up to your bike wheel, track speed and distance far better for any fitness tracker afaik,,,


I wish the watch did work for other phones though, apples expedition into google play store might be a hint that they may be about to bridge android wear or similar into the watch, as why not make more profit if you could!

Saw a dude recently with "the Darth Vader" model, black link steel and a Samsung - maybe he was running a hotspot but apart from 1st party apps not sure how useful the watch would be without an iPhone. Speaking of why not iPad and iPod touch, but I guess it needs data connection so that would have similar annoyances..




If any of you are on Fon have you tried taking the watch with you and no phone? My friend "freaked out a bit" when his watch happily kept working and notifications too, we were at a mall while he got his 6S swapped. Every phone box here is a Fon hotspot which is pretty handy when you're in the city or a mall.

A little bit confused on what I need to read more about. [edit: rereading what I said, I understand the confusion, sorry! I was speaking of the moto 360 sport specifically because it can track runs/bike sessions with GPS AND store music on the device] I didn't state or imply, or at least didn't mean to, that the watch won't store music. I can throw some songs on the watch, but if I don't bring my iphone, my running, and particularly my biking, sessions would be tracked in rather inferior way.

Moving on, you are absolutely right about tracking biking activity. That sort of device is for the more dedicated biker. Similarly a more dedicated runner will likely wear a chest strap heart rate monitor rather than rely on HR from a watch type device.

My gripe is this device is, in my opinion, a $350 notifications device with only the most bare bones fitness tracking capabilities. I can get a fitbit for about $65 that does just as well as the Apple watch does in that regard. All the while the entry level is called sport, I suspect more because they didn't want to call it "the cheap one". For as much as Apple even advertises it as a fitness tracking device, it's rather weak.

My feeling is that the battery life for what it does (or doesn't) is pretty sub par. My wife has one of these and if she forgets to charge it once there's not a snowball's chance in hell it lasts a second day. Conversely my fitbit surge, which accepts but does not send texts and phone calls (all she uses her Apple watch for most days) will easily go five days without a charge. No, not exactly a fair comparison as the screens are different and the battery IS actually bigger on the surge, but this rumor states we are likely to go the opposite way (in that we will have even less battery to work with).

What I am saying is, for me, it just doesn't do enough to justify the price point. Adding GPS, which is originally what I responded to, wouldn't hurt the battery life in any way for those people who state they wouldn't use it. For those that would, I think it would be a great feature. And I am not even saying don't make the watch thinner. Just make a second gen sport watch with some more advanced fitness capabilities.

At the end of the day Apple will dow hat Apple will do. I am just trying to think about ways the product would enrich my life. Because right now it falls short.

 

[keatth]

remember how thin the iPad 2 vs iPad? it's gonna be like that.

 

[lordofthereef]

Cellular is over rated. I use the watch almost exclusively without an iPhone. Simply entering the range of any wifi hotspot I've previously connected to enables virtually full functionality without the phone anywhere near. The reality is, this is acceptable for all but going for a hike in the mountains, something during which an iPhone may not have reception either.

I think this is going to depend heavily on how connected wherever you work/play tends to be. My wife is manager at Best Buy, of all places for this to be an issue, but their wifi signal in there isn't the greatest and she often gets dropped. She essentially go the watch to be able to leave her phone in the hub but ends up keeping it on her back pocket (partially hanging out) because she can't rely on the wifi.

 

[Stirlo]

This reminds me of the Apple patent a couple of years ago, where a device would have a super low power mode checking to see if a human was in front of it.


Indeed, I bet you that if/when Apple offers a round version, it'll outsell the dull rectangular version, in the same way that real round watches hugely outsell real rectangular ones.

Heck, if Apple had been the one to put out a round always-on watch, while everyone else had stuck with 1980s technology flick-on rectangular screens, we'd be singing Apple's praises right now as an innovator

Nope. Just no. It will suck. https://m.imgur.com/a/SIFyA
[doublepost=1460427541][/doublepost]

Everyone I know who has the Apple Watch rarely use it. They are usually on their iPhones while the watch sits there with that black screen just waiting to be woke up. This device is a waste of time in my honest opinion.

*limited, biased opinion? FTFY


Everyone I know has a rolls Royce and the edition model over here ;-)
[doublepost=1460427865][/doublepost]

Then odds are you're never getting one. Battery technology is nowhere near able to provide day long battery life AND video playback.

Don't. You want to watch a movie? I really want to squint at Star Wars on a tiny tiny screen wooooooo


/plays video already but yah it's not really what the thing is for lol
[doublepost=1460428084][/doublepost]

40% thinning plus a more intuitive OS would be enough for me pick a sport model. I've never been a fan of endless scrolling thing that's getting popular in so many apps.

A more "3D" interface using force touch and 3D overhaul could work really well on both iPhone and watchOS

 

[tresmith]

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

I don't disagree with you. However, as hard as it may be, I do believe there's a way to do it.

here's what I'm thinking...

You make a larger circular apple watch (46-50mm) one where you can fit the rectangular screen of the old apple watch (38 & 42mm) in it. If you imagine a square in a circular, you'll have cutoff areas at the sides top and bottom which you can use for directional buttons, icons, alerts etc.

You'll have your rectangle for a traditional GUI and extra real estate for additional functions.

Take that extra space coupled with 3D touch and you increase the amount of potential functions significantly. Think of the possibilities?

 

[johnnyturbouk]

Elder wand? One word: "yes"

Indeed, it will be magical

 

[BSben]

Glad to hear that there is a possible update to the aWatch. I won't consider buying one until it is basically like my iPod Nano 6G "iWatch" but with auto-on and video playback capability.

I can't wait to watch films on my watch. Are you actually serious that you want to watch films in the size of a postage stamp? If that is the case maybe you should spend money on having a normal life, like going to the cinema and meet people.

 

[sracer]

I can't wait to watch films on my watch. Are you actually serious that you want to watch films in the size of a postage stamp? If that is the case maybe you should spend money on having a normal life, like going to the cinema and meet people.

Very witty.

For the edification of others who might be interested, I think it would be helpful/nice to be able to watch YouTube clips, animated GIFs, Vines, and other snippets. If the aWatch can send "heartbeats" to other aWatches, sending a short clip to others can be just as "useful" (read: gimmicky).

 

[Mac 128]

Very witty.

For the edification of others who might be interested, I think it would be helpful/nice to be able to watch YouTube clips, animated GIFs, Vines, and other snippets. If the aWatch can send "heartbeats" to other aWatches, sending a short clip to others can be just as "useful" (read: gimmicky).

Yes. Another use for the Watch FaceTime camera!

 

[Stirlo]

I don't disagree with you. However, as hard as it may be, I do believe there's a way to do it.

here's what I'm thinking...

You make a larger circular apple watch (46-50mm) one where you can fit the rectangular screen of the old apple watch (38 & 42mm) in it. If you imagine a square in a circular, you'll have cutoff areas at the sides top and bottom which you can use for directional buttons, icons, alerts etc.

You'll have your rectangle for a traditional GUI and extra real estate for additional functions.

Take that extra space coupled with 3D touch and you increase the amount of potential functions significantly. Think of the possibilities?

True. It would sort of be like running iPhone apps on iPad, and eventually we (3rd party devs) would give in and support all the styles. I'm not even sure if my design apps support a circular canvas, must check that I guess just in case.. Normal text might magically expand to use all space but more constrained stuff like games and graphic interface apps would need two versions,and that would be a big hassle for small to large corps.
[doublepost=1460549528][/doublepost]

Very witty.

For the edification of others who might be interested, I think it would be helpful/nice to be able to watch YouTube clips, animated GIFs, Vines, and other snippets. If the aWatch can send "heartbeats" to other aWatches, sending a short clip to others can be just as "useful" (read: gimmicky).

You'd be surprised at what video content the watch isn't able to play, havent encountered much recently, sucks to watch on small screen though