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.
What a New Design Could Mean for Apple Watch Series 4
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’d prefer not to need an iPhone. Looking to ditch the phone and keep the watch.
On one hand, yes, it shouldn't require owning an iPhone - an iPad ought to be able to do all the things necessary to be the "home base" for an Apple Watch (some of those bits may take a lot more work to implement on macOS).
On the other hand, ever since the models with built-in cellular and GPS were released, last September, there's no need to carry your iPhone (or powerbanks) around while doing outdoor sports. If you just want the watch, just take the watch. Leave the phone in the car, or at home.
Lastly, how does one use an iPhone or Apple Watch posteriorly?
No problem, as long as you don't mind something that covers most of your forearm.
You and your type are not real buyers. It’s one excuse after another on why you won’t buy, which is why you’ll keep your 4” phone and Subaru forever.
That is very odd. Apple should do a functional analysis of you and your Watch to see what the failure mechanism is.
That is very odd. Apple should do a functional analysis of you and your Watch to see what the failure mechanism is.
Actually we are, they currently have one of my iPhone X's and my Apple Watch 3
I agree this is strange, hopefully we figure something out.
real buyers?? sorry I know what I want and what I am willing to pay for.
The mentality some have with phones are irrational as a majority of consumers do not benefit from the increases in phones capabilities year after year. That is also why you don't see people buying new macbook pros each time a new one hits the market, here a cost benefit analysis are easier to make as we are talking about a higher price point.
By deciding not to buy something you are actually making a choice, by being vocal about your concerns in the direction you are showing an interest in an alternative.
I went on a little digging in you posting history and I think it says more about you then it does about me and my "type"
I actually would, but I think you have a pretty uniform idea of the people liking the 4" size, and no one else could make you change that
I'm going to take a wild guess that your fundamental objection to Apple Watch is the form factor. If your definition of a watch is something round that goes tick, tick, tick, then you should definitely buy one of those instead, but that doesn't make Apple Watch some kind of knockoff of the real thing. I've said since Day One that Apple made a tactical mistake calling this device a watch because right away the expensive watch people were complaining that it's the wrong shape and does too many things that aren't watch-like. Personally I have no problem accepting it for what it is, but then I came to it without any preconceived ideas about what a watch should be.
[doublepost=1531429844][/doublepost]Niche market? 100 million diabetics and pre-diabetics in the US market alone. That's a bid deal for almost a third of the country.
Can't they take a page out of the matrix and somehow charge the battery with all the electrical power we humans make?
No not at all. I am not complaining that just because it's a rectangle that it isn't a watch, I've owned several analog watches that were rectangle. My gripe is with the limitations on it personally achieving my tastes which is a general trade-off of course with buying an Apple product and I can't get mad about that nor am I. I am just hopeful that maybe we can get some more watch faces that would match the styling's that other smart watch manufactures provide. Typing that out though again makes me realize why it won't happen because Apple won't match competition. As a watch enthusiast who was very highly persuaded by others to try the Apple Watch, it's very boring in the smart watch segment. These are my opinions and I have no preconceived ideas on what should be what with a watch at all. I just find it, in my personal experience, to definitely lack my interest in keeping it on my wrist.
I think you were just unlucky because I've been wearing these sapphire glass watches since the launch of the Series 0 and I have never cracked one. My husband has, too. Never cracked one. So has our son. Never cracked one.
Daughter has one she wears sometimes.... never cracked it, either.
[doublepost=1531432505][/doublepost]
Okay... that explains it. Yeah... glass cracks. Sapphire is really hard to crack. I have a friend who dropped his stainless steel model on a tile floor from fairly high up and did some real damage, but that sort of thing is not the norm.
[doublepost=1531432592][/doublepost]
Some analog watch brands have been doing this for over a decade from kinetic energy. Some brands do it from solar energy, too. I think the AW just needs too much power for that to really make a huge difference and not be obtrusive.
[doublepost=1531432651][/doublepost]
So... do you want it to work properly? Because that bump on the back is how it communicates with your body.
So all of the square wrist accessories that I have from the late 70’s to the mid 80’s aren’t really watches? They seemed kind of cool at the time, even if it did take your other hand to activate the digital display so you could see the time.
Pretty much the same problem now as it was then. A square form factor offers more battery square millimeters than a comparable diameter round watch, and a bigger battery means more features or more usage. Right now, smart watches need all the power they can get. Yes there are round fitness watches. They don't do nearly as much as an Apple Watch, but their display lasts longer. But they aren't selling that well.
Truth is, the Apple Watch isn't selling all that well either, but it is selling a lot better than anyone else's smart watch. Maybe after a few more models I'll buy one. "What?" I hear you say, you're defending this product and you don't even own one? Yes. Remember how I started this post, mentioning the early (and expensive) digital watches? I bought those. I also bought a CD player in the very early 80's. And a LaserDisc movie player. And a TRS-80 computer in the 70's. When AW has a long battery life and a ton of useful and practical features I fully intend on buying one. But I've paid my early adopter dues. Someone else can fund the R&D now.
Whilst my Series 2 does me just fine and provides everything I want it to (with the exception of better watch faces), I am keen to see what a larger screen looks like in reality.
If it is like the renders, I am very interested...
If it is like the renders, I am very interested...
Yeah, let's get into the screen-size-bloat-war on the watch! Before you know it, there's a 12" Watch Pro Plus strapped to your wrist, with original bands!
I was waiting for cellular when the watch was first released, and then with series 3 that wish was fulfilled. However, by that time, rumours of a larger screen and probably some more sensors started floating, and I think I should probably wait it out and see what the new refresh brings to the wrist.
Actually, glucose monitoring would have a large market. It's estimated that nearly 10% of the US population have diabetes.
Won't happen because glucose monitoring with only lights still does not work. Even those new meters where you stick something on your arm and just use NFC to get a reading have a small needle in your arm.
[doublepost=1531484957][/doublepost]
But the puck still inserts a needle in your arm.