Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What will the Apple Watch become in 2 years?

fischersd said:
The problem is, we've been beating that horse for several years now. CPU's get smaller and more efficient, but the battery tech hasn't advanced much at all.

Sure, Apple created formed batteries to get the most of the space they could out of the new macbook. But the Lithium Ion tech is more than a decade old.

The chip manufacturers have hit a wall in terms of miniaturization. If we don't get an advance in battery tech soon, we're going to hit some hard limits in terms of functionality.
Click to expand...

Yep, but we know that the S1 Chip in the Watch is built on the 28nm process. Samsung is tooling up a 10nm chip making process. So there are several levels of efficiency already available and soon to be available. As far as the smart phones are concerned, for me the iPhone 6 ended the daily battery issue. I got my phone around launch and I don't think I've ever killed the battery in one day of use (provided the phone was fully charged the night before). I think even Apple wouldn't be crazy enough to try to make the iPhone any thinner, so I think current battery tech has basically solved the battery issue for smartphones. (And my Blackberry Q10 gets two days of battery life, and the more current Blackberry phones (the Q10 is two years old) do even better because they aren't ultra thin like the iPhone.)

Maybe Tesla will come up with better battery tech. Or someone else will, but as you point out there hasn't been much in the way of improvements here in the last decade. And in any case for the watch, simple CPU efficiency improvements using existing technology will improve battery life. Apple may use existing tech to make the watch thinner, but that will be a design decision, not a tech limitation.
 
Mac 128 said:
And yet the first thing kids who see the watch for the first time think is they want to take selfies with it.

For this reason and FaceTime, there will be a camera as soon as the 2nd Gen model.
Click to expand...

Can't see Apple wanting people to think of their first foray into fashion as 'something the kids can take selfies with'. They're clearly trying to avoid making the thing into a 'gadget', and it seems to be working quite well for them.
 
418 said:
Can't see Apple wanting people to think of their first foray into fashion as 'something the kids can take selfies with'. They're clearly trying to avoid making the thing into a 'gadget', and it seems to be working quite well for them.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why Tim Cook geeked out on stage during his keynote talking about wanting to make phone calls on his wristwatch since he was a kid in footie-pajamas reading Dick Tracy comics -- because he was so concerned about people perceiving the watch as a "gadget".
 
Mac 128 said:
Right, that's why Tim Cook geeked out on stage during his keynote talking about wanting to make phone calls on his wristwatch since he was a kid in footie-pajamas reading Dick Tracy comics -- because he was so concerned about people perceiving the watch as a "gadget".
Click to expand...

They have to promote its ability to do more than an ordinary wristwatch to a certain extent, but they clearly put a strong emphasis on it being a fashion item. Additionally, consider than those media events are watched largely by enthusiasts - people who are interested in a gadget (or anything at all which carries an Apple logo, in reality).

The Watch's presence in other (e.g. printed) media carried a different message - more about fashion, quality etc. They also had the watch in high end shops to promote that it was a quality timepiece, not just another iPhone accessory.
 
418 said:
They have to promote its ability to do more than an ordinary wristwatch to a certain extent, but they clearly put a strong emphasis on it being a fashion item. Additionally, consider than those media events are watched largely by enthusiasts - people who are interested in a gadget (or anything at all which carries an Apple logo, in reality).

The Watch's presence in other (e.g. printed) media carried a different message - more about fashion, quality etc. They also had the watch in high end shops to promote that it was a quality timepiece, not just another iPhone accessory.
Click to expand...

Oh for crying out loud ... First, there were dozens of fashion people invited to that event. Second Apple's current TV commercials promote the extremely "gadgety" features like sending your heartbeat to a loved-one, or sending a short doodle to them to show that you're thinking about them. Using it as a camera remote control. Animated watch faces! Do you really think that being able to conveniently take selfies, or take a FaceTime call is going to turn off people who prioritize the temporal shallowness of fashion? I mean, do we really think Pharrell Williams, Drake, Beyonce, Katy Perry will think the watch is too gadgety if they are able to do these things? That they'd rather pull out their iPhone and selfie-stick to get a quick spontaneous picture with a friend or fan for their twitter pages?

The WHOLE point of the watch is that you can leave your phone wherever it is and conveniently access it. The fact you can take a phone call on the watch is proof enough adding a camera to it would be a logical priority for it. FaceTime is a huge business for Apple and making it as convenient to take a FaceTime call with the watch is just as important as taking a phone call. Otherwise, why not just glance at the watch to see who's calling, and if you need to take the call, just pull out your phone. Even when I get to my phone to see who's calling now, sometimes I miss it. That's why you can take the call on your watch ... because it makes it more convenient and less likely you will miss it. The same thing applies to FaceTime. If FaceTime weren't important to Apple and its customers there's no reason they would have pushed cellular carriers into providing it over cellular connections at no extra charge.

We'll see who's ultimately right by next April, so it would seem we will have to agree to disagree for now. I do agree they will have to find a way to make the camera more discreet on the watch than it is on the iPhone because it is more of a jewelry item, but I have no doubt they are working hard to do just that.
 
Mac 128 said:
The WHOLE point of the watch is that you can leave your phone wherever it is and conveniently access it. The fact you can take a phone call on the watch is proof enough adding a camera to it would be a logical priority for it. FaceTime is a huge business for Apple and making it as convenient to take a FaceTime call with the watch is just as important as taking a phone call. Otherwise, why not just glance at the watch to see who's calling, and if you need to take the call, just pull out your phone. Even when I get to my phone to see who's calling now, sometimes I miss it. That's why you can take the call on your watch ... because it makes it more convenient and less likely you will miss it. The same thing applies to FaceTime. If FaceTime weren't important to Apple and its customers there's no reason they would have pushed cellular carriers into providing it over cellular connections at no extra charge.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Dhonk said:
It will likely get thinner with slightly better battery life (2 days). It may also appear in more sizes and perhaps even offer more shapes. It will have more memory, 3rd party native apps.

Now for the photos....putting a camera on this device is ridiculous. The Galaxy Gear was as creepy as Google Class with how it allows people to take photos without anyone else knowing what they're up to. I am shocked the current watch doesn't have a FaceTime camera--it should. A GPS chip seems likely too.
Click to expand...

GPS - Yes! Forgot that one. Same size or thinner - longer battery life - faster processor - more memory in some form. Better allow all existing Apple Bands to work for at least a few more versions.
 
Camera on wrist seems rather stupid.
FaceTime may be nice to use though, although it would be better to whip the phone out for something so involved.
 
I don't think it will have GPS on the Watch. I think Apple realized that with a GPS you would not need the phone for running.

----------

Better battery life maybe hijack the battery from the Garmin vivoactive
 
Mac 128 said:
Oh for crying out loud ... First, there were dozens of fashion people invited to that event. Second Apple's current TV commercials promote the extremely "gadgety" features like sending your heartbeat to a loved-one, or sending a short doodle to them to show that you're thinking about them. Using it as a camera remote control. Animated watch faces! Do you really think that being able to conveniently take selfies, or take a FaceTime call is going to turn off people who prioritize the temporal shallowness of fashion? I mean, do we really think Pharrell Williams, Drake, Beyonce, Katy Perry will think the watch is too gadgety if they are able to do these things? That they'd rather pull out their iPhone and selfie-stick to get a quick spontaneous picture with a friend or fan for their twitter pages?

The WHOLE point of the watch is that you can leave your phone wherever it is and conveniently access it. The fact you can take a phone call on the watch is proof enough adding a camera to it would be a logical priority for it. FaceTime is a huge business for Apple and making it as convenient to take a FaceTime call with the watch is just as important as taking a phone call. Otherwise, why not just glance at the watch to see who's calling, and if you need to take the call, just pull out your phone. Even when I get to my phone to see who's calling now, sometimes I miss it. That's why you can take the call on your watch ... because it makes it more convenient and less likely you will miss it. The same thing applies to FaceTime. If FaceTime weren't important to Apple and its customers there's no reason they would have pushed cellular carriers into providing it over cellular connections at no extra charge.

We'll see who's ultimately right by next April, so it would seem we will have to agree to disagree for now. I do agree they will have to find a way to make the camera more discreet on the watch than it is on the iPhone because it is more of a jewelry item, but I have no doubt they are working hard to do just that.
Click to expand...

Features which people use discretely (responding to messages, digital touch, reading emails etc. etc. etc.) don't earn the watch a negative image.
If there are people holding Apple Watches over their faces to take pictures of themselves left, right and centre, then it could gain the :apple:Watch bad attention. I would find it hard to take the watch seriously as a watch if it were the new standard in taking 'selfies'.

I'm not going to argue that the next model won't have a camera - it's an obvious feature which could add perceived value to the next generation. And I think it could be neat in some situations - I think FaceTime for the watch could be quite useful, for instance (though not without serious technical considerations). I would be unsurprised, however, if there wasn't a camera app on the watch out of the box. (Not saying I don't think there would be, just that it's a possibility which would not surprise me.)
 
I would prefer the watch to become thinner first before better battery life, if it had to be one or the other. The current battery life is doable.
 
respectabilia said:
I would prefer the watch to become thinner first before better battery life, if it had to be one or the other. The current battery life is doable.
Click to expand...

The Apple Watch is much smaller than the watches I was wearing. I cannot comprehend this argument. It's too light already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back