Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Appl3FTW, Oct 19, 2014.
Does that mean the apple watch would be wireless charging?
They demonstrated wireless charging at the keynote. And because it would get water, dirt, stuff in it and look bad.
All the info you need...
to seal it of from hardware hacks and therefore prevent jailbreaking of the device and to control every connection to the device. Yes the apple watch is wirelessly charged.
LMFAO How is that wireless charging when there is still a cord attached? I guess inductive charging is wireless? If so, then my toothbrush has had wireless charging the past 3 years. Ha!
No, the Apple Watch does not have wireless charging.
No, it was magnetic charging. Close, but not quite.
No wires = wireless. Just because it's magnet-adjacent means nothing. The magnets dont transfer power.
WTF are you talking about. The magnet aligns it. WTF is magnetic charging??
It is inductive DC charging. Just like your Sonicare toothbrush.
No wires? Then what's this:
that's just semantics.
There is no wires connecting the aWatch to the power supply. The energy is passed into the aWatch battery by radio waves (inductive charging) and not wires. Please let us know of any other way you know of to charge with no wires involved in getting power from the wall socket to the charger?
By this logic, Macbooks have wireless charging?
I'd say the biggest reason for no lightning port is the size. The port is relatively large compared to the phone and having it would destroy the lines of the phone.
The 6th gen iPod Nano (commonly used as a watch) has a dock connector!
They could have fitted one if they wanted to, but there's no need.
It's not just logic it is fact. If the power is supplied by radio waves instead of wires then it is wireless. There is no wires making a connection into the aWatch or Macbook. Please explain what YOU think wireless charging is?
It was not a designed watch by apple, people used it as a watch, where as this is a watch and apple cares about how it will look as one.
Try running in the rain with that. You can't offer an IP water rating with a hole for water to enter.
Hey! I'm currently wearing a silver 6th gen Nano with an aluminum Lunatik Lynk band. I'm shocked at how many people have told me that they like that combo better than the aWatch.
...and how many of then have seen an aWatch?
Sure you can listen to music with it and you've got a dock connector! I would prefer it!
Everyone who has commented on my Nano watch.
I'm definitely enjoying it. I bought it about a week after the unveiling of the aWatch. $75 for the Nano (in excellent condition) and $48 for the Lynk (Directly from Lunatik, there are many fakes out there)
My point is they and you are comparing a physical object to a picture. Until you have one in your hand under your own vision you can't make a direct and meaningful comparison.
Your point assumes things that were never said. You didn't ask WHY they liked the Nano watch over the aWatch.
They liked the ability to have functionality without requiring an iPhone. They understand that the Nano does less than the aWatch, but they like the standalone nature.
They like the ability to connect earbuds and headphones directly to it.
They like that it can run for 4-5 days before requiring it to be charged.
Given those reasons, a "meaningful comparison" is quite possible.
...but you CAN listen to music without your iPhone and WITHOUT wires (BT headphones).
Also if using only features available on the Nano like time and music you may be able to get several days of use on the aWatch (since we don't know yet).