Slashdot Mirror
Report: Apple Watch 2 Coming Late 2016 With GPS, Faster Processor and Better Waterproofing (9to5mac.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Apple analyst KGI's Ming-Chi Kuo says the Apple Watch 2 is right around the corner. The analyst says the Watch will arrive in late 2016 and will likely be announced alongside the iPhone 7 in September. It will reportedly feature a GPS, barometer, better waterproofing, as well as a new internal SoC for faster performance. Those looking for a fresh new design may be disappointed as KGI does not expect the physical design of the watch to change at all. The Apple Watch 2 will essentially be an 'iPhone S' update, where it keeps the same physical design with improved internal specifications. In addition to the updated Apple Watch 2, Apple is expected to update the original Apple Watch with a new SoC to improve CPU and GPU performance. The price of the Apple Watch in general should be cut even further than it already has. The original Apple Watch could receive more than a $50 reduction in its pricing, possibly pushing it below the $200 mark. We should know more in early September when Apple unveils the iPhone 7.
and some additional stuff that nobody cares about..
It would be interesting if they could add a camera for a facetime on the wrist experience, something that seemed utterly SF not that long ago.
But the true killer app for this kind of device will be the eventual addition of more health related sensors. Probably not in this release though.
Unreliable heart rate detection, GPS and fitness tracking, voice recording on command, what else? In the future a smart watch will be able to project directions on the ground to somewhere or someone you're trying to find; to remind you in the grocery store that you wanted to pick up some milk; to answer arbitrary questions from the internet; to alert emergency services when you've suffered a stroke or car collision; an many other things.
But for now the functionality is so low as to put them in the category of "ornament".
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
GPS, great way to halve the battery life.
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Otherwise it's water-resistant.
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
When I use the GPS on my iPhone5 it gets hot. (And it eats the battery.)
The last thing I want is something hot on my wrist unless it's 0C. (Which is hardly ever.)
And will /. ever enter the 21st Century and let me enter a fricken degree sign?
Has anyone figured what the point of a smartwatch is?
Those health/fitness bands I can understand: they keep track of vitals which is useful in various situations.
But a full fledged smartwatch with camera, gps, apps, and other gimmicks? Especially if they need to be tethered to a phone to do anything? Not useful, and certainly not worth the price tag of a smartphone which provides more functionality and has a bigger screen.
It's a gadget for the sake of a gadget. The most common use case I hear for smartwatches is "I don't need to pull out my phone to look at notifications during meetings!". Yeah, neither do The sort of notification that may require my immediate attention during a meeting (or any other situation, really) comes with a klaxon, a red strobe light and people wailing about the awakening of Cthulhu and end of the world (i.e., the network is down).
Otherwise, it can wait.
...*yaaawn*
Sorry Apple, but your watch is not the killer product you thought it was. Beyond the usual fanboys nobody is interested, not just in your smartwatch, but in any smartwatch. Phones do everything the watch can do much better except as a convenient way to tell the time, and if thats all you need the watch to do you can get a a Casio for the price of a takeaway that will do it equally well and have a 5 year battery life on top.
How does a Apple fanboy know when it's 12 o clock? He looks at his wrist and sees his Apple watch has run out of battery.
maybe the killer applications will also be external sensors
A wrist watch really only has two things that it is valuable for. 1) portable notification of concise pieces of information (time, short messages, notifications, appointments, temperature readings, etc) and 2) a portable sensor suite and data logger (thermometer, barometer, altimeter, gps, accelerometer, compass, etc) . And these things are really only useful if they come in a package with substantial battery life (1 week minimum) and an interface that isn't absurd. The key word in all that is portable. It's only for applications where carrying something bigger like a cell phone makes no sense. Workouts, sloppy conditions, swimming, certain social situations, and the like. Any situation where carrying a smartphone makes sense the watch becomes redundant. So any watch that isn't useful without a cell phone is de-facto pointless.
My concern with the Apple watch is that they are trying to turn it into another smartphone rather than a device that makes sense by itself within its own design constraints. It's like they are trying to stuff 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag. I own a smartphone because it doesn't tether me to a PC and it provides a ton of value by itself. In fact it made it so that I can carry fewer devices since it consolidated my MP3 player, PDA, point and shoot camera and cell phone into one device. I don't own a smartwatch because A) I don't like wearing a wrist watch and B) it isn't useful as a standalone product for anything I need and C) it doesn't replace or consolidate anything for me. I already have an old school wrist mounted chronometer (which I rarely use) and also a fitbit for the rare occasions when I need that sort of data logging. The smartphone I carry does almost everything an Apple watch does and does most of it better except in the rare cases where I need extreme portability. If I have to carry both anyway what is the point of the watch?
I'm not opposed to the idea of a smartwatch but nobody has hit the magic formula yet I think.
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Not true at all. A watch can be waterproof at 1m depth and not waterproof at 20m depth. That is true for any device, whether it be a submarine, a wristwatch or anything else. You can accurately describe something as waterproof as long as you also provide the conditions under which it is waterproof. Water resistant means that it will not immediately fail under a particular set of conditions but that prolonged exposure will probably result in damage or failure eventually. Water proof means it can withstand those condition indefinitely without ill effect. See the difference?
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
Incorrect. It means it is waterproof in conditions where it wasn't previously.
The most common use case I hear for smartwatches is "I don't need to pull out my phone to look at notifications during meetings!". Yeah, neither do The sort of notification that may require my immediate attention during a meeting (or any other situation, really) comes with a klaxon, a red strobe light and people wailing about the awakening of Cthulhu and end of the world (i.e., the network is down).
Exactly. If something really demands my immediate attention either A) I know about it in advance and just warn people when socially necessary that I might have to attend to whatever it is or B) I don't know about it in advance but it will come from a source that will know how to get my attention in an emergency (call my secretary, etc) and so a watch provides zero additional value. But almost always it can wait a few minutes. I just don't get the notification argument for a phone. The marginal value of that is close to nil.
I wish they'd do something similar for their computers, given the fact that most of their computers are non-upgradable and it's all soldered on the motherboards now (CPU, GPU and RAM).
So, how many of these "apple watch" advertisements will we be subjected to between now and the time the thing is actually released?
No new physical design? But how will the Apple Fag® let other Apple Fags® know that he wasted his paycheck on the newest Apple Fag® device?
you forgot "status symbol".
I said "useful". So no, I didn't forget at all. The only thing about it that makes a watch a status symbol is the price and that is an independent variable from the design. A bag of shit could be a status symbol if you could convince people to pay a lot of money for one and display it prominently. (See Trump Fragrances if you need an example)
On the other hand, if we waited for the first version of every product to be perfect before shipping, nothing would ever ship.
Complex product design is an iterative process. The first cars didn't ship with airbags, 300 horsepower engines, antilock brakes, and power steering.
Sometimes it's useful to release a product that is useful to a significant market segment, and then get usage statistics and product feedback in order to make it far more useful to a much larger market. And you get some revenue that you can reinvest into making the product better.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It baffle me that we now buy watch that fail at it's actual main purpose : being a watch.
So far, most smart watches are inferior at their main job compared to "not smart" one. And the key feature (in my mind) are :
- Give you the time efficiently
- No need to recharge
- It's look (will you wear it in a interview?)
So far, the first apple watch fail at those three task (like most smart watch anyway). I wouldn't be wearing one if it wasn't for a girlfriend that bough me one as a Christmas present and I'm glad that she bough me a Pebble Steel since it's the one that does the best job :
- Always-on display, so do you don't have to "wake" the watch to look at the time
- A week long batteries. Still far from the years-long from standard watch but, oh well, it perform a lot better than it's competitor.
- And it look good. The screen isn't black when others look at it and it's doesn't shout : "Oh look, I'm a "Apple Fanboy/Nerd" too much.
They can add any gadget they want, but for me the main flaw of the apple watch were the battery, the lack of an always-on display and it's look. So it's Three Strikes Out for me.
Elok
On the other hand, if we waited for the first version of every product to be perfect before shipping, nothing would ever ship.
Doesn't have to be perfect. It does has to have the proper design intent. The iPhone got the fundamentals of a smartphone right. That's why pretty much every smartphone since has cribbed a lot of their original design. (which is a good thing) No Apple didn't get every detail correct right away but the framework was there. I don't think Apple has accomplished the same thing with the Apple Watch. Not yet anyway. I also think they are chasing what really is a pretty narrow set of use cases.
Complex product design is an iterative process. The first cars didn't ship with airbags, 300 horsepower engines, antilock brakes, and power steering.
No but they did get the fundamentals right. 4 Wheels, steering system, suspension, seats, etc. A Model T is recognizably a car like one today even if they didn't get all the details right. The PCs from the late 70s & early 80s got the formula right and it's been iteration ever since. I'm not convinced the Apple Watch has got the fundamental formula right. (nor anyone else for that matter) I don't see a use case that would get me or those I know to start wearing a watch given that I very rarely wear one now even if they dramatically improve its current deficiencies.
Sometimes it's useful to release a product that is useful to a significant market segment, and then get usage statistics and product feedback in order to make it far more useful to a much larger market.
Certainly although I've seen little evidence so far of Apple doing this with the Apple Watch. I'm sure they are working hard to improve it but working hard if they are on a dead end path ultimately is futile. While I'm not certain if they are on a dead end, they certainly are a long way from what I consider a product worthy of purchase. My take on it is that the technology isn't quite there yet for a really useful smartwatch. I don't think the idea is dumb but I'm not sure we have gotten quite to the point where it can all come together into something greater than the sum of the parts.
Something is waterproof or it is not.
My LG Smart watch can't even f'n keep time on it's own. If it sits on its base charging, but not bluetooth connected to the phone - within a day or two the time will go out of sync. Within 5 days, the time will be off by at least 30 minutes, and the date will be wrong.
A watch that can't even keep time is NOT a freaking watch.
All that exists is various levels of water resistance.
Or are you saying that a cheap "water-proof" Casio will still work after being submerged to a depth of 10,000 ft for a year?
FWIW, the original Apple watch is rated IPX7 under IEC standard 60529, meaning that it can sustain being submerged under 1 meter of water for 30 min.
It's IPX7 under IEC standard 60529.
Or are you really so fucking stupid that you don't know how to spell "Cue"?
I bet their existing Apple watch was getting lonely in the drawer all by itself. Now they can buy something to keep it company.
With its 97% Satisfaction rating, I don't think there are actually too many languishing in drawers.
Check your facts before you post, Hater.
I read the title as saying, "... Faster Processor and Better Waterboarding" and didn't blink an eye. I thought to myself, "Well, at least it's getting better."
"Queue", asshole.
Rather than burning your skin like to old apple watch.
The new apple 2 watch just sets you on fire.
Only cultists, refer to their opponents as "haters". Go consult your e-meter, dude.
Only cultists, refer to their opponents as "haters". Go consult your e-meter, dude.
Only Anonymous Cowards post worthless, untruthful hatred on Slashdot.
So STFU and FOAD, COWARD.
Don't be so angry. Your watches battery will be recharged pretty soon now....
"GPS, Faster Processor and Better Waterproofing" ...and it'll still be a flop.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Nah, I did that delibrately to annoy pedantic twats
and didn't have your phone on you. Or you got robbed by gay bashers and you can run before you get your watch off.
How to find your way back to San Francisco. What a bargain. Does it come in Starbucks latte brown with cum froth trim?
Er, no. In this context, cue is correct, queue is incorrect. How long would it have taken for you to check your correction on Google? But then, I guess the fact that you don't know the difference between cue and queue is ample proof that you're too dim to think of doing that.
We love it when it has booty emoji too. Please say it has booty emoji.
Er, no, dumbfuck. Queue, as in a fucking line. As in line up the jokes. As in, fucking learn to fucking speak fucking proper fucking English.
Asshole.
Cue, as "Cue the haters to queue their abuse."
Or in "fucking english", that would be "Cue, as in fucking queue the goddam haters to queue their dumfuck asses up to shit their abuse."
Wow, such anger. Watch the blood pressure dude. You don't wanna have a stroke.
Well, judging by your last sentence, I think I'm too late.
Speak way understand better this fucking you if?
"Speak way understand better this fucking you if?"
"fucking" English isn't my first language, I think I messed it up. Sorry about that.
Otherwise, *whoosh*.
Oh boy. Did you really just do that to yourself?
It is so *sweet* watching people get cross about a language over which they have such little command.
Let's quote the OED, shall we?
"Cue:
1. A thing said or done that serves as a signal to an actor or other performer to enter or to begin their speech or performance:
'she had not yet been given her cue to come out on to the dais'
1.1 A signal for action:
'his success was the cue for the rest of Fleet Street to forge ahead'
1.2 A circumstance or piece of information which aids the memory in retrieving details not recalled spontaneously.
1.3 A feature of something perceived that is used in the brain’s interpretation of the perception:
'expectancy is communicated both by auditory and visual cues'
1.4 A hint or indication about how to behave in particular circumstances:
'my teacher joked about such attitudes and I followed her cue'
2 [MASS NOUN] A facility for playing through an audio or video recording very rapidly until a desired starting point is reached."
Meanings 1, 1.1 and 2 apply here. "Queue", however, is the wrong word. And you are spectacularly, completely, humiliatingly, utterly, wrong. Twice!! Congratulations. Do you vote for Trump, too?