Will Apple Watch eventualy work with the iPad?

[richardmu]

I would love an Apple Watch but don't have or want an iPhone.

Does anyone think that Apple may allow the Watch to work with the iPad?

I can't see any reason why it shouldn't apart from Apple is selling it as an iPhone accessory. May be lots of possibilities if it can work with the iPad.

 

[flur]

Are you prepared to take your ipad everywhere you go? The watch can do very little without the device it's paired with.

 

[Night Spring]

Are you prepared to take your ipad everywhere you go? The watch can do very little without the device it's paired with.

My mom has been taking the iPad mini with her whenever she goes out. She doesn't want to pay for an iPhone cell plan, but she wanted the watch for its activity tracking functions. I dusted off an old iPhone 5 that was sitting around and set it up to work with her watch (sans data plan, so the phone needs to tether to her iPad). So my mom now has an extra device to carry around. For her, it would be perfect if the watch paired directly with her iPad.

 

[Xtremjeepn]

Are you prepared to take your ipad everywhere you go? The watch can do very little without the device it's paired with.

I carried an iPad with me nearly everywhere for years. I used it for work and be default it came with me everywhere 24/7. (had a Android phone).

I often use my iPad in my shop to play music from. (cord won't fit my iPhone case). It would be nice to control the music on the iPad with the watch.

There is a Keynote remote app on the watch, but many people keep those Keynote presentations on a iPad, not their phone. (Think company iPad, but private phone)

 

[Camusrieux]

Does anyone think that Apple may allow the Watch to work with the iPad?

I think so. Probably not for 2-3 more generations, though.

Of course, I'm one of those crazies who thinks that smartwatches will eventually kill smartphones, turning all iPhones into for-all-practical-purposes iPads of various screen sizes. That won't happen for a number of years (and Watch generations), though. And it will only happen if/when battery technology improves considerably.

The wrist has beaten the pocket once; why shouldn't it do so again?

 

[flur]

I think so. Probably not for 2-3 more generations, though.

Of course, I'm one of those crazies who thinks that smartwatches will eventually kill smartphones, turning all iPhones into for-all-practical-purposes iPads of various screen sizes. That won't happen for a number of years (and Watch generations), though. And it will only happen if/when battery technology improves considerably.

The wrist has beaten the pocket once; why shouldn't it do so again?

I'm one of those crazies too - once the battery life is good enough to support a cellular connection, there's no reason to not have the watch as the phone and the "phone" effectively becomes a connected ipod touch. I look forward to the day when I can go out for the evening with my watch and leave my phone AND my wallet at home.

 

[Mac 128]

I would love an Apple Watch but don't have or want an iPhone.

Does anyone think that Apple may allow the Watch to work with the iPad?

I can't see any reason why it shouldn't apart from Apple is selling it as an iPhone accessory. May be lots of possibilities if it can work with the iPad.

I agree. It will dramatically open up the market for the Watch to not just those who own a particular iPhone. Many Android phone users have an iPad, or an iPod Touch, or a Mac.

The watch does plenty without the phone, and will likely do more over the next couple of generations. But Apple should expand the potential market as soon as next year to take advantage of the heat. Given how constrained the launch has been, it was probably a good decision by Apple to limit it to the iPhone, as well as to work the bugs out with one device.

But yeah, all the fitness apps will work and synchronize with the iPad when back in range. The watch will work, music and pictures can be synchronized with the iPad, Pay will work and I don't see any reason it can't be set up on the iPad, et al, Maps can be pre-loaded, etc.

The only thing that won't work is Siri, and notifications. However, the watch will receive notifications anytime you are in a location where you logged into the internet with your iPad since the watch remembers that. In fact, Apple could customize the UI to meet the expectations of whatever device set it up.

As a stock holder, I hope they do it.

 

[odHbo]

I'm sure the Apple Watch will work with iPad for hand-off very soon. I predict it'll happen during WWDC.

Aside from the needed cellular connectivity, the Apple Watch working only with iPhone (IMO) was mainly to entice people to upgrade from their iPhone 4 and 4Ss to at least a 5C. Obviously they wanted people to go to 6 and 6+ with a watch but hey, money is money. Also, think about the people who switched from other phone manufactures to iPhone solely for the the watch.

Having the watch work with the iPad out of the gate would have cause serious confusion during the launch and i'm talking primarily amongst customers who aren't in the know. Apple doesn't want people getting excited about buying the Apple Watch when they only own an iPad.

 

[AJsAWiz]

Walking around with iPad

Not sure I understand the rationale here.
I do carry my iPhone with me everywhere I go.
Can't say the same for my iPad.

 

[macduke]

My mom has been taking the iPad mini with her whenever she goes out. She doesn't want to pay for an iPhone cell plan, but she wanted the watch for its activity tracking functions. I dusted off an old iPhone 5 that was sitting around and set it up to work with her watch (sans data plan, so the phone needs to tether to her iPad). So my mom now has an extra device to carry around. For her, it would be perfect if the watch paired directly with her iPad.

My mom also carries her cellular iPad with her everywhere she goes. She has a pretty massive purse and the iPad barely takes up any space. So it could work for some people.

 

[HowlinAl]

What's so unreasonable about the question? There are many times I'd rather hand off to my iPad. Or use the iPad to adjust the watch settings etc. I hope this comes soon.

 

[mightyjabba]

This topic has come up before, but my feeling is that the number of people who would benefit from this is so small that Apple is not going to bother with it. You'd have to have an iPad with a cellular connection AND carry it with you all the time. More likely they will expand the watch's ability to be independent, such as by giving it proper wi-fi connectivity and (eventually) it's own cellular radio.

That's not to say that they might not add some sort of interactivity with the iPad -- the example of handoff would make sense, for example.

 

[Michael CM1]

I think so. Probably not for 2-3 more generations, though.

Of course, I'm one of those crazies who thinks that smartwatches will eventually kill smartphones, turning all iPhones into for-all-practical-purposes iPads of various screen sizes. That won't happen for a number of years (and Watch generations), though. And it will only happen if/when battery technology improves considerably.

The wrist has beaten the pocket once; why shouldn't it do so again?

The problem is no device does everything better than the others. My iPad Air is still much easier to read than an iPhone or Apple Watch. It also has more battery life and just by sheer size can more easily hold extra flash storage.

The iPhone has a very complete feature set (full websites, decent video and audio, good storage capacity) in a device that fits in my pocket. It also has a pretty good camera. But it's not as legible as an iPad display, will likely never get iPad-like battery life just because of physics, and is too big to always be visible at a wrist flick like the watch.

The Apple Watch sounds like it's good at notifying you of incoming calls and messages, tracking various health statistics and remote-controlling a lot of things that need minimal input. But see the above for things it can't do because it's tiny. It will never be a major gaming platform and you will never, ever read a book on it unless on a dare.

Smartwatches could one day make a huge dent in smartphone sales if they add cellular (duh), get battery life up to maybe three days for normal usage -- I charge my iPhone nightly but use it all the time for music, Facebook, other Web stuff -- and make it much more standalone. There are people who would buy this as their phone if they don't need all of the full web experience but want a way to contact others. Some breakthrough in better Bluetooth headsets might be needed because that's where a watch really struggles compared to an iPhone or even iPad.

 

[rhsmd1]

even if you wanted to use an ipad with the watch, you would still need either a hot spot for wifi, or a data plan for on the go, to get messages and email,etc onto the ipad, to be sent to the watch.
so a more compact iphone might still be the way to go.

 

[bjdraw]

I'd like to see the Watch work with all Apple devices. It would of course still requires the iPhone, but it would be nice to be able to get notifications on the iPad/Mac Book instead of the Watch when I'm using it. It would also be nice if the notifications didn't duplicate, the way iMessages currently works. This is especially true of the phone feature, what is more annoying then hearing my iPhone, Watch, iPad and Mac all ring at the same time when I get a phone call.

 

[Mac 128]

You'd have to have an iPad with a cellular connection AND carry it with you all the time.

Why do people keep saying this? You only need this to use Siri and get notifications. Not everybody wants or needs these things everywhere they go. Apple stressed in their keynote you could go out jogging with the watch and use Pay, et al, without the need for your phone. And it will log on to any wifi network you've already been on with your phone allowing you to get some notifications when you frequent those places. As far as I can tell, eliminating the iPhone from many of these functions would be a software fix.

For people who don't own an iPhone and want some of the functionality of a smartwatch, but want the style and build quality of an Watch, this would be a great option. If they use notifications, but don't carry a cellular iPad with them, then they just pull their phone out the way they are presently doing. Since most people are using notifications at work, then a network connected iPad gets the job done all day. And of course all night at home. That only leaves commuting when people will most likely be using the phone, and some merchants they may run errands to where they haven't previously set up wifi. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, the watch being out of contact for that little time during the day.

 

[jwball]

I can't see the point but it is easy to do.

 

[Camusrieux]

Smartwatches could one day make a huge dent in smartphone sales if they add cellular (duh), get battery life up to maybe three days for normal usage -- I charge my iPhone nightly but use it all the time for music, Facebook, other Web stuff -- and make it much more standalone. There are people who would buy this as their phone if they don't need all of the full web experience but want a way to contact others.

Right; exactly. This is precisely the hypothesis that I've been offering, though I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with it.

Under that system, there would still be plenty of room for various sizes of portable content-consumption devices—iPhone-sized, iPad-sized, laptop form factor, and so on—for the considerable number of people who still desired them. The Watch would merely be the node on the personal network that has the cellular connection and GPS; the other devices would connect to the Watch to access that (and other) data, but they themselves would be intended strictly for display, storage, and perhaps certain kinds of data entry (keyboard, digital camera, video-game controller, etc.). At that point, as you suggest, a non-negligible proportion of consumers would surely decide they don't need to shell out money for a portable (though far bulkier than a Watch) Web-surfing/video-watching/extra storage/etc. device at all.

Some breakthrough in better Bluetooth headsets might be needed because that's where a watch really struggles compared to an iPhone or even iPad.

Really? I have a few Bluetooth headsets, and they work fine for me.

Unquestionably there will need to be significant (though hardly implausible) technological advances made in various areas in order for smartwatches to take over the portable-computer-device market in the way I suspect they will, but I'm not sure that Bluetooth hardware is one of the things that need significant upgrades in order for smartwatches to get there.

I agree, though, that in a smartwatch-ruled portable-tech world, wireless headsets become just as vital as, say, iPads are now. They certainly make phone calls and other voice-centered functions more practicable than they are likely to ever be with a Watch alone.

 

[jjlannoo]

I think they should allow it on the cell modem iPads

 

[Camusrieux]

Why do people keep saying this? You only need [a connection to a cellular iOS device] to use Siri and get notifications. Not everybody wants or needs these things everywhere they go.

Welll... the Watch currently requires a connected iPhone in order to get any kind of information about the outside world, including (say) weather reports, calendar items, maps, sports scores, and anything at all that involves a third-party app (though this last part will be substantially changing soon). That's not just "Siri and notifications."

On the other hand, you're right the Watch can do more on its own than most people realize—and Apple hasn't done a great job of pointing this out.

And [Watch] will log on to any wifi network you've already been on with your phone allowing you to get some notifications when you frequent those places.

The precise interaction between the Watch and wifi is confusing and ambiguous (Apple, IIUC, has been continually vague about exactly how it works), but I don't think it's correct to say that the Watch can and does use "any wifi network you've already been on with your phone." I think your iPhone has to be connected to that very network at the same time as the Watch.

Again, on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Watch-to-wifi connection couldn't work in the way you describe, though—perhaps in the near future.

As far as I can tell, eliminating the iPhone from many of these functions would be a software fix.

As long as there's a previously-used wifi network involved, I suppose that's right.

 

[HereBeMonsters]

Seriously? Just no, for many, many reasons. Mainly that my jeans don't have pockets big enough for an iPad. And would it be cellular ones only?

 

[418]

I don't understand why people are making a distinction between the WiFi-only/cellular iPads here.
For a start, to my knowledge, Apple has never made one out to be superior over the other in any other way than that one can get at the internet without nearby WiFi but the other can't. I don't think they're going to start saying "You can use a watch with a cellular iPad but nota WiFi one. They just cater to different use cases.
Also, the connection used to get onto the internet using a phone network is a different connection to the one used to make phone calls and send SMS, so I can't see why it would offer any advantage (other than being able to 'tether').

 

[HereBeMonsters]

So the Watch wouldn't be able to make or receive phone calls, or SMS?

So, I'm going to go with no then. I mean, it's not like it works with an iPod touch now, does it?

 

[Julien]

• No cell phone service
• No GPS (in some)
• No Health App
• No Stocks or Wether App
• Companion & Activity Apps would need it be ported

 

[Xtremjeepn]

Seriously? Just no, for many, many reasons. Mainly that my jeans don't have pockets big enough for an iPad. And would it be cellular ones only?

If you & many others here would actually read the above posts you would see that there are many valid reasons that a link to the iPad would be useful.

It doesn't need to support ALL the reasons, just some!