Will Apple Watch eventualy work with the iPad?

[mightyjabba]

The question isn't whether some people might find it useful. I'm sure they would. But for Apple to offer it, they would have to think that it was a good user experience. Unless there are some major changes to the way the watch works, using it without a phone would be confusing and frustrating. The watch's wi-fi functionality is limited and often doesn't work. And besides, if you can't get notifications, use Siri or third-party apps on the go, why even bother with a wearable?

Also when we talk about people wanting to use it with an iPad, I assume we're talking about people who have an iPad but own some other brand of mobile phone? Because that would mean that you would end up getting two sets of notifications -- one set on the Android phone (or whatever) and one set on the watch when you did have a connection.

 

[bbeagle]

Also when we talk about people wanting to use it with an iPad, I assume we're talking about people who have an iPad but own some other brand of mobile phone?

No - I own an iPad with a cellular connection. I would love to throw away my iPhone and use just an iPad and an Apple Watch.

My iPad goes with me wherever I go. I love to read, so it's just like carrying a book with me everywhere I go.

 

[mightyjabba]

You are an edge case and Apple has never catered to edge cases.

 

[Night Spring]

Also when we talk about people wanting to use it with an iPad, I assume we're talking about people who have an iPad but own some other brand of mobile phone? Because that would mean that you would end up getting two sets of notifications -- one set on the Android phone (or whatever) and one set on the watch when you did have a connection.

My mom has a flip phone and a cellular iPad. Her flip phone has no notifications, the only notification she would get are the ones that come to her iPad.

 

[Xtremjeepn]

The question isn't whether some people might find it useful. I'm sure they would. But for Apple to offer it, they would have to think that it was a good user experience. Unless there are some major changes to the way the watch works, using it without a phone would be confusing and frustrating. The watch's wi-fi functionality is limited and often doesn't work. And besides, if you can't get notifications, use Siri or third-party apps on the go, why even bother with a wearable?

Also when we talk about people wanting to use it with an iPad, I assume we're talking about people who have an iPad but own some other brand of mobile phone? Because that would mean that you would end up getting two sets of notifications -- one set on the Android phone (or whatever) and one set on the watch when you did have a connection.

The user experience would be improved, not degraded.

I posted 3 very simple and probably common use cases above.

1.Controlling music being played through the iPad. I have an iPad in a shop that runs the music. It would be nice to control it from across the shop.

2. There is already a Keynote Remote control app from . Most keynote presentations are going to be on a company MacBook or iPad, not personal iPhones.

3. It would be nice to sit down and review your Heath Data from an iPad.

Theae are quick and easy examples things that wouldn't matter what phone you have.

Another option could be for businesses that have iPad POS systems. The owner/manager could receive a notification that certain things have happened at the POS terminal. The owner/manager could be in another part of the business and automatically notified of a transaction problem, over a certain amount, when a certain daily threshold is reached and cash should be moved to the safe, etc, etc,

There are all sorts of viable reasons to have the option to link to an iPad.

 

[mightyjabba]

I'm not arguing against connecting the watch to an iPad somehow. I am arguing against the idea of connecting it to the iPad instead of an iPhone.

 

[flur]

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.

IMO this is why watch-as-phone is a winner idea. We've gotten to the point where we're asking our phones to be good at too many things. A phone needs to go everywhere, be easy to hold for calls, have a good enough screen for reading/browsing/watching all kinds of things, fit in the pants pocket, etc. Quite a few of the things we want our phones to do are contradictory. So let's hand off the things that we want in a small device to the small device, and save the things that work better on a larger device for the larger device (with LOTS of options in size for what constitutes "larger").

For example, the screen on the 6+ is great and I totally get why lots of people want it. But when I'm going out for the evening or to an event where I want to dress up, what am I supposed to do with that giant device? If I can get my calls, messages, and everything that's vitally important on my watch (without it being tethered), I can leave my larger device at home. But when I'm going to work, or the doctor's office, or wherever I'm going where I'll want something with a large screen, I can take my bigger screen with me. It's no longer a compromise - I always have the right device for the task.

 

[Trius]

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.

iPad's MO is not full network connectivity at all times, which is what the iPhone does. The user experience for the Watch requires a constant network connection. I honestly see the watch becoming a stand-alone device before it pairs with the iPad.

 

[flur]

iPad's MO is not full network connectivity at all times, which is what the iPhone does.

Cellular ipads have full connectivity at all times. Just sayin'.

 

[Trius]

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.

Actually, this is exactly how it works. Even though the watch will show the 'disconnected' symbol, it will connect to wifi and most things will work, Siri, iMessage, maps.. etc. Even if the iPhone is not connected to the same network or even turned off completely.

----------

Cellular ipads have full connectivity at all times. Just sayin'.

True, but not ALL iPads. It creates too many variables for customers to have to consider. iPhone is ALWAYS connected, period. Regardless of which version you have.

 

[flur]

True, but not ALL iPads. It creates too many variables for customers to have to consider.

People are smarter than you give them credit for.

 

[Night Spring]

True, but not ALL iPads. It creates too many variables for customers to have to consider. iPhone is ALWAYS connected, period. Regardless of which version you have.

People are smarter than you give them credit for.

Exactly. If you have a cellular iPad, then it's always connected to the Internet, exactly like an iPhone. There's no confusion over whether there is or isn't a connection.

 

[Xtremjeepn]

Exactly. If you have a cellular iPad, then it's always connected to the Internet, exactly like an iPhone. There's no confusion over whether there is or isn't a connection.

I've carried a cellular iPad with me since launch day of the original, now on an Air2 and they only update when you turn them on(the screen). It often takes several minutes for the mail to sync.

 

[Night Spring]

I've carried a cellular iPad with me since launch day of the original, now on an Air2 and they only update when you turn them on(the screen). It often takes several minutes for the mail to sync.

Hmmmm. I don't get enough mail for this to matter, so never noticed whether the cellular iPad downloads email without turning the screen on or not. I know iMessages come through on cellular even with the screen turned off.

 

[HereBeMonsters]

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!

Then you would get everyone complaining that certain functions weren't supported if you had an iPad instead of an iPhone.

There's just no way they would do it.

 

[Randizzledante]

You are an edge case and Apple has never catered to edge cases.

I assume your omnipotence figured this one out?

I'd love to get rid of my iPhone at this point. Apple Watch + iPad would be killer.

 

[mightyjabba]

I assume your omnipotence figured this one out?

I'd love to get rid of my iPhone at this point. Apple Watch + iPad would be killer.

I'm not saying you're wrong to want that. I can sort of understand it. I just don't think you're anywhere near the typical user.

 

[richardmu]

I assume your omnipotence figured this one out?

I'd love to get rid of my iPhone at this point. Apple Watch + iPad would be killer.

Absolutely agree. My iPad is almost always with me and even with somewhat reduced functionality because it's not a phone I'm sure there could be amazing things to be done with a Watch and iPad link.

 

[Trius]

People are smarter than you give them credit for.

Probably. But that's beside the point. I'm speaking from Apple's perspective. It's supposed to just work, and as simply as possible. The more variables you add, the less focused the product becomes. I'm not saying the iPad shouldn't be able to connect to the watch. I'm saying, based on what I understand about Apple's philosophy, it's highly doubtful.

 

[JoEw]

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 share your viewpoint, everyone calls me crazy but I've already noticed how little I directly use my iPhone nowadays.

 

[fischersd]

Absolutely agree. My iPad is almost always with me and even with somewhat reduced functionality because it's not a phone I'm sure there could be amazing things to be done with a Watch and iPad link.

Right, but there's no reason that a cellular iPad can't also do everything the iPhone can do. The wifi iPad could also be a phone - just a VoIP one.

These threads are fun as we all get to throw the hypothetical cases around, but no-one here knows what Apple has planned. I doubt any of the exec team hang out in here.

 

[Michael CM1]

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.


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.

I think the problem with the watch centering as the cellular connection is how small it is and battery life. If you're going to provide cellular connections for your phone, tablet, computer and other devices, you're going to draw a bunch of power from wherever that connection resides. In a phone, you've got more space to use for a larger battery and can build in larger cellular radios. Faster, more efficient cellular radios are going to start out larger in size than a watch can handle for the foreseeable future.

I don't completely write this off because who knows what new engineering methods could be developed. But right now an Apple Watch will last a day or two without a built-in cellular radio. Everybody keeps pushing for faster speeds on cellular, so it's not like my MacBook Air where these things have really matured and engineers could focus on 12-hour active battery life using a full computer.

One invention or development that could change this all is inductive charging. If this became as standard as USB ports and the charging speed was insanely fast, I could see the battery issue not mattering as much. Hell, if literal wireless charging got developed where devices were charged like they get WiFi at a Starbucks now, THEN I'm aboard! But I'm thinking anything that charges that quickly would probably be the equivalent of firing a laser at someone and hoping it charges a battery.

 

[Randizzledante]

I'm not saying you're wrong to want that. I can sort of understand it. I just don't think you're anywhere near the typical user.

It is possible, I have no idea either way, but I would not have thought this before purchasing the Watch, so maybe it's a perspective people will grow into?

I just can't think of a reason I have my iPhone 6 now. For quick/simple/easy things, I do everything on the Watch. When I want to spend any length of time on an iDevice, be it web browsing or even composing longer text messages, I would much rather use my iPad.

At this point, iPad + Apple Watch just makes so much more sense. At the very least, I'm considering getting an iPhone 6S+ on the next refresh, instead of a 6S, because maybe with the slightly larger phone, I'll be tempted to use it again.

Very interested in other thoughts on this though.

 

[iamasmith]

One could ask why today can't you use your iPad like a regular phone.. the mini is actually probably small enough for some to use as a phone (personally I like my iPhone 5s but I digress)..

The iPhone adds features that the iPad doesn't give and I'm guessing Apple want to keep the product categories unique and distinct enough to be valuable.