Why didn't apple just use the lightning cable for the watch?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Appl3FTW, Apr 17, 2015.

  1. Appl3FTW macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #1
    I mean I get it, apple will profit blah blah... But cmon wouldn't it be simpler if we use the same lightning cable? Maybe by using the magport for the watch Apple was able to use the space more instead of integrating it with the motherboard. that one too okay I get it .
     
  2. foxkoneko macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    #2
    arent they already doing this just with an extra piece at the end for the watch belly piece :p
     
  3. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
  4. simsdaniel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Location:
    Sacramento, California
    #4
    It's improved technology. Not only would it make the Watch thicker and less water resistant but who wants to plug a cord into a watch to charge it?
     
  5. Appl3FTW thread starter macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #5
    No you're talking about the diagnostic port
     
  6. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #6
    ^ I second this.
     
  7. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #7
    :apple:Watch Lightning port = water entrance.
     
  8. bunnicula macrumors 68040

    bunnicula

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #8
    If you buy an Edition, it charges in its box and you just plug a lightning cable into the back of the box. ;)

    I mean, if you wanted simple.

    They didn't put a lightning cable port into the watch because... water damage from an open port.
     
  9. Appl3FTW thread starter macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #9
    But they can create a cover for it check ringke case
     
  10. Quahog macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    #10
    I agree, I think the biggest reason is water resistance.

    Plus it would probably require more space to have the lightning port.
     
  11. Appl3FTW thread starter macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #11
    Not lightning, usb type c
     
  12. webworks415 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    #12
    Those rubber port covers are ugly. Never seen one on an Apple device, besides those plastic nubs old iPods used to include.
     
  13. MrLoL macrumors 6502

    MrLoL

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2014
    #13
    Because it's so much easier to charge than putting the lightning cable right in the hole. (Even if it's reversible)
     
  14. shenfrey macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    #14
    I asked about the water resistance in the Apple Store and the employee said that you should still be careful, it's not completely resistant.
     
  15. Appl3FTW thread starter macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #15
    I was merely suggesting it. I'm sure apple could develop a better cover than plastic.
     
  16. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #16
    Doesn't matter what you were told by an employee. It only matters what Apple put in writing and it is advertised as being IPx7.;)
     
  17. dilap macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Location:
    London, UK
    #17
    Just asking, why would they include a lightening cable? But not a USB Type-C?
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Appl3FTW thread starter macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #18
    So that means I have to carry my lightning cable and my magport or the watch plus my 30 pin if I'm using the old iPad. I thought the 30 pin and the lightning cable days were over. now I have to deal with lightning plus the magport. I thought dual cables are over since everything is using lightning cable now but I guess not
     
  19. shenfrey macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    #19

    So not completely water resistant then. Sounds to me the employee got it spot on.
     
  20. ohio.emt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Location:
    Ohio
    #20
    Do the other smartwatches have a plug in power cord?
     
  21. Appl3FTW thread starter macrumors 601

    Appl3FTW

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #21
    The watch is water resistant not waterproof

    ----------

    Well if it's lightning cable I'm glad. Maybe the reviewer was wrong he said it was type c.
     
  22. dilap macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    I like to think of Apple as a company that try to keep their portable device as free from external moving covers: trying to keep it simple.
     
  23. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #23
    It makes no sense to suggest a worse implementation. Just ask any Samsung owners how annoying those flaps are.
     
  24. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #24
    What is completely water resistant????? There is no such thing as a completely water resistant watch. Given enough depth/pressure EVRERY watch will fail.
     
  25. shenfrey macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    #25

    Yes but with ipx7 there's no such thing as depth. Washing your hands with it is about as good as it gets.
     

Share This Page