Slashdot Mirror
Apple Plans To Release a Cellular-Capable Watch To Break iPhone Ties (bloomberg.com)
According to Bloomberg, Apple is planning to release a version of the Apple Watch later this year that can connect directly to cellular networks, a move designed to reduce the device's reliance on the iPhone. From the report: Currently, Apple requires its smartwatch to be connected wirelessly to an iPhone to stream music, download directions in maps, and send messages while on the go. Equipped with LTE chips, at least some new Apple Watch models, planned for release by the end of the year, will be able to conduct many tasks without an iPhone in range, the people said. For example, a user would be able to download new songs and use apps and leave their smartphone at home. Intel Corp. will supply the LTE modems for the new Watch, according to another person familiar with the situation. Apple is already in talks with carriers in the U.S. and Europe about offering the cellular version, the people added. The carriers supporting the LTE Apple Watch, at least at launch, may be a limited subset of those that carry the iPhone, one of the people said.
I'd have killed for this twenty years ago. Now days audio transmission seems almost incidental to what one wants out of a mobile device. On the other hand, this might make a great flip phone killer/safety device for the elderly. I've fallen and I can't load angry birds!
For apple, this may be the first step towards a world where, if you so desire, the iWatch IS the phone, and the iPad (with an LTE modem and adequate SW, of course) is the screen for said phone.
So, when you are on the go with the iWatch only (say, excercising, trecki9ng, or, for the ladies, dancing with an ultra small dress and an ultrasmall purse), you get basic phone functionality from the watch (voice Calls, SMS receive, push notifications, alerts, preset answers) over a narrowband low power 4G connection, and when the iWatch is close to the iPad, the iPad becomes the full fat phone (including a wideband LTE Channel) and uses the SIM from the watch...
Of course, I am not saying apple will do this this autum*. Only apple know IF they will do it, and WHEN they will do it. But that, IMHO, will be an unbeatable combo, and will be the day when these SmartWatches come on their own...
Took a long while, I was asking for this in 2015....
* Otoño Coño
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
What about battery life? Or whole room charging .. or at least in car charging where you don't have to take the watch off your wrist?
Until that happens, the watch is ( for me ) a device of limited utility, and not of interest regardless of price.
Don't we need a decent sized antenna to participate in cell network?
faggot CEO, faggot "industrial designer", what can you do with cocks in your mouth and buttplugs in your stupid ass.
Sounds like somebody's actually more jealous of the Scrooge McDuck pile of money that Cook and Co. are sitting on...
...or is anyone else also concerned about the long-term safety of a fairly high-powered microwave transmitter strapped to the same location of your wrist for days/months/years?
For apple, this may be the first step towards a world where, if you so desire, the iWatch IS the phone, and the iPad (with an LTE modem and adequate SW, of course) is the screen for said phone.
The market for what you describe is very limited compared to the market for cell phones. Apple knows this. And the market is limited because of multiple factors. Cost, and the hassle of carrying a larger device AND a smaller device, will work against such an arrangement being embraced by the masses. What I envision, described below, will be FAR superior to your scheme, for too many reasons to enumerate here.
What I want is a pair of eyeglasses which acts as a large screen, with a pocketable device that contains the processors, main battery, radio chips, etc. ( could be a watch, could be a cell phone sized piece ) with gestural and voice input. You'd rarely need to have a physical device in your hands and could instead use the device via gestures and / or voice control. The glasses would also work in an "augmented reality" capacity. The implications of augmented reality are difficult to fully imagine, because some uses will not be obvious until after the fact, just as has been the case with cell phones.
The usefulness of a screen which is built into glasses will make devices like an iPad look comically primitive.
For years I've expected such a device to be available. Given enough time, it will be.
I've admittedly not been keeping track of smart watches in general, but I'm really surprised that Apple hasn't done this (a GSM-capable watch) yet. It seems like a case of being dragged into it by their competitors.
My embarrassingly old Samsung Gear S (not an S2 or S3) has a sim card, can do all of that (in TFA) and originate and receive calls. And if I forget my phone at home, calls to the phone are automatically routed to the watch. (This was my primary use case, as I'm often leaving my phone either at home or at work.) I keep wifi turned off, as it seems an unnecessary battery drain, but 3g and bluetooth turned on.
I've seen several Apple watches on co-worker's wrists, but didn't realize they're still anchored to their owner's iphones. How quaint.
When these new GSM-capable watches come out, the marketing could be entertaining. Let's see if Apple tries to make people believe they invented the concept.
Which reminds me, I have to make note of the day the new watches come out, so I can avoid the starbucks next to the local AT&T store. On release day there's always a crowd in the parking lot waiting for the store to open, and this makes it tough to get coffee. I don't know what Apple puts in their kool-aid, but they are the undisputed masters at developing mindshare.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Another attempt to play catch up to Samsung.
Gee, if this review of the Gear S3 is any indication, I sure Hope not!
https://www.cnet.com/products/...
Another attempt to play catch up to Samsung.
I'm actually wearing a Gear S as I write this, so yeah, I get it. Just a few minutes ago I took a call from my daughter on my watch without my phone being in bluetooth range. (I keep leaving the damned thing on the charger at home.)
But Apple's design philosophy for the watch was always as an accessory for the iphone, not as an independent device. It was a "force multiplier" for iphone sales, never intended as a separate product. (I had to do some reading when this article came out, because I hadn't been aware that Apple hadn't already done this.)
The technology to put the great majority of the feature set of a smart phone into a watch (confined only by the small screen) has been available since at least 2014. It was not ineptitude, but a deliberate marketing decision on Apple's part not to use it.
And even now, it looks from TFA that the new i-watches won't take calls on their own.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Great review, I was trying to decide between an iwatch and a Gear S3 and this review sold me. Ordered my new Gear S3!!!
But the only ones boasting about this big pile of money are apple worshippers. Other then having thrown your own pile of cash into this pit what good does it you or anyone. A company like apple would burn it all before doing anything useful with it.
I remember how cool calculator watches were. I guess things never really change, they just get reinvented.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Apple's inspiration for this
"All of this for $24.99!"
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
and I'm happy, a week on a charge, I can read the screen in day light, It doesn't do everything that the apple watch can do but it is a watch and it tells time.
Even better the Garmin doesn't light up in the middle of the night destroying my night vision. I'm also not concerned about getting it wet.
I gave apple a chance and they just couldn't deliver.
I've never understood wearing a smart watch when you already have a smart phone on your person. A smart watch with a cell connection doesnt make much more sense to me though when one could just carry a phone that does more and is easier to use.
I guess for those wearing clothes without pockets or with pockets that are impractical to use it makes sense...
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Or catch up to Dick Tracy, same difference
"I like X, I don't understand why others like Y"
- Every Slashdot comment for the past 20 years
The hardware connectivity isn't the issue. The OS and apps will have to be modified and enhanced extensively to allow the watch to function without the phone. For me, the Apple Watch is primarily a notification extension of the phone. Notifications go to it, which in many cases is all I need to see about a particular notification (calendar event, message, email, whatever). In the other cases it prompts me to look at the phone to actually consume the information or reply. This has been the design paradigm Apple has followed and enforced on the users - you have to really bend over backwards to attempt to use the watch without interacting with the phone. So they will have to do some major overhauls to the standard suite of apps to make the watch more useful since it can now function physically without the phone.
Better known as 318230.
...Android counterparts already do.
Not sure if it's a good strategy though... problem with smartwatches using cellular networks is that you don't have enough space to put a big enough battery to allow that and last through the day. Power draw becomes an issue.
Apple watch will have some advantage in that the WatchOS probably has a plenty optimized power saving mode and whatnot, but I don't imagine it being too different since the major power draw comes from the cellular chip and there's not much you can do about it.
Forget big brands, chinese smartwatches have been coming out plenty cheap (around 100 bucks) with SIM card support, some old customized version of Android (the latest ones have 5.1), quadcore SoCs... the latest crop have 2Gb of RAM and 16Gb of storage - came out recently.
You can install pretty much any app from Google Play Store, but most of them won't work well... just because of the aspect ratio difference.
I got one for myself because I wanted something I could make calls with while running, and I don't want to carry my smartphone with me at those times. They work plenty well, surprisingly well built (as long as you stick to the ones around the 100 bucks mark). But I don't think battery will last for over 5 hours or so.
If I get called, I typically pick up the phone, put it on speaker and start talking.
So why not use a smart watch then? That's exactly how taking calls on an Apple Watch works - why would you hold it up to your ear??!!?
It simply starts off in speaker mode and you use it just like you would a phone in that way. It's as loud as you need it to be and it picks up your voice just fine.
But I doubt that I could do FaceTime well w/ the watch
Actually I don't doubt that would work pretty well, I think it would be easier than using the phone. But the Apple Watch does not come with a camera and I don't think it will anytime soon. You could use it for FaceTime Audio though, that works quite well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm really surprised that Apple hasn't done this (a GSM-capable watch) yet. It seems like a case of being dragged into it by their competitors.
No, it's a case of competitors trying to get out ahead of Apples obvious long-term roadmap and still failing anyway.
The reason of for failure of course is that Apple makes products that provide useful features but are still basically usable by non-technical people.
People have done smart-watches with cellular ability before but they suck to use and they certainly suck battery life down. In any case, they simply did not provide good compromises to add that feature.
It was as obvious Apple was going to add cellular capability eventually as it was they were waiting do to so until the battery issue would not impact the design or battery life greatly. They apparently are close to that point as technology and signal coverage improves (no need for a giant antenna or large power drain for reception if cellular reception is strong enough to begin with).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just a few minutes ago I took a call from my daughter on my watch without my phone being in bluetooth range.
The Apple Watch can do that already, since it also connects over WiFi. The phone forwards the audio or connection as needed.
But Apple's design philosophy for the watch was always as an accessory for the iphone, not as an independent device
I am amused by the combination of "always" and "was". Yes everything was "always" something until it was suddenly something else.
never intended as a separate product.
Spoken like someone who has never used the Apple Watch SDK.
It was not ineptitude, but a deliberate marketing decision
Pretty sure it was not a marketing choice alone to decline in making a watch that was too monstrous or suffered poor battery life. The words you and many others seem to have misplaced are "engineering tradeoff". Now technology has advanced to the point the tradeoffs will not be unacceptable to most people.
And even now, it looks from TFA that the new i-watches won't take calls on their own.
Since I can already do so today... well lets just say choking to believe anything about a pre-released product is foolhardy at best. I am not even convinced yet there will be a cellular model on offer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Phone is in pocket since walking perhaps hands occupied. Alerts easy to view on watch to evaluate if should react quickly or later. If need a quick response can do voice or simple presets like "ok", "busy now ", etc... Convenient BT remote for selfies now can participate in pics. Can use the phone finder too when misplace. Pairs with BT chest strap HRM for jogging . Has built in HRM for more stationary checking. Helpful to proactively manage limited battery. Put in standby when not using. It is currently a tweener accessory with modest use cases. At a few hundred dollars priced more than a simple watch but less than designer watch. Just like a tool box it can be useful for some depending on use. If exercise or hiking a larger use Garmin might be better but if have an iPhone iWatch a versatile all around accessory. I get my money's worth use it many times per week for convenience that is worth more than a boutique coffee or other beverage. If Apple offers a a cellular version then hope they offer flexible power options vs always on.
Cellular networks in cities have gotten stronger with more coverage. So It's practical to make device that has simpler networking needs now, that can get away with a smaller antenna with less of a power draw for receiving and transmitting.
People only think about hardware on devices improving, forgetting that the network is constantly improving also.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if you had a regular 'feature' phone instead of a damn battery-draining smart phone, it wouldn't need to live in the fucking charger -- tethered to the ac mains like it was on life support. pull the plug already. battery life measured in weeks, not hours, can be yours.
You sound like a fan boy. I clearly state I don't see the advantages of a smart watch. You could be useful and point to some or be a jackass and post as you did.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Oh shit.... I was completely drunk when I go bought it! Damn piece of shit Gea S3!!!!!! Any other drunken bastard wanna take it off me?
At a technical level, this makes no sense for Apple. One of the biggest criticisms of the watch has been the poor battery life and the fact that it often cannot cope with a full day of use without running flat.
With that being an established fact, why on earth would Apple contemplate adding a power-hungry cellular transceiver in to it?
As we know, rumours of the iPhone8 have been circulating for some time now. Apple are notoriously secretive because they like the publicity value of being able to release something that is completely unexpected in to the marketplace. For this reason we've also seen them adopt a practice of seeding misinformation into the rumour-mill, just to throw competition and scoop-hungry journalists off track.
I have zero inside knowledge - this is pure guesswork - but I would suspect that this is one of those misinformation rumours. Unless Apple are going to debut some brand new battery technology with the next Watch, this one's a dud.
It's not his job to spoonfeed you. If you can't see why some people might want a microcomputer that straps to their wrist then maybe you're just an idiot.
No shit, Sherlock. And I don't need to use a gas station if I just walk everywhere. But a car can do things my legs can't that matter to me, and a smartphone can do things a feature phone can't that matter to me. And that is true for most people.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"K.I.T.T., Get over here !"
apple is the most lying company in tech so im goona go with the first one
Is there a serious risk for this causing any cancer?
Just a few minutes ago I took a call from my daughter on my watch
I keep waiting for a guy named Michael to take a call from his wife Kitt (short for Kitty or Katherine) but no luck so far.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Were? They're still the hottest thing out there: Casio CA53W. 4.5 stars and over 1700 reviews.
if you had a regular 'feature' phone instead of a damn battery-draining smart phone, it wouldn't need to live in the fucking charger -- tethered to the ac mains like it was on life support. pull the plug already. battery life measured in weeks, not hours, can be yours.
I wouldn't have put it like that, but you're right. Our "house phone" (so we can keep our original hard line phone number) is a cheap flip phone, and it'll last over two weeks on a single charge. We've really lost something in the rush to make smart phones do more and more in a thinner and thinner package.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
No, of course not right now, the current Apple Watch has no SIM. But if they do add one then yes, why not??
Not sure why this is hard for you to comprehend.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nothing up my sleeve here -- the Gear S will take calls without wifi or bluetooth. It has a sim card and its own phone number.
So in other words your watch cannot take calls either, because who is going to bother to call you on your watch? The Gear S is an even stupider idea than I thought, and my opinion was already low.
That is where the Apple Watch with a sim card has the potential to improve over the nightmare the Gear S presents to the average user, because it would obviously share the same number, since that is what people would ACTUALLY WANT from a cellular smartwatch.
I actually keep the wifi turned off on the watch to save battery.
Just keep on digging that "only fit for deeply technical users" hole as deep as you like.
But don't let me stand in the way if you want to trade in your current Apple watch for what amounts to a tiny incremental improvement.
Over time, tiny improvements add to a lot of advancement. The iPhone over the years mostly offered tiny improvements, yet the version I have now is amazingly better than the original.
Because tiny improvements are offered, I generally skip an upgrade or two. Tiny improvements are also kinder to the non-technical user base because they can decide more easily when it's right for them to move on. My wife waits about five years between phones for example...
The point still stands: The Apple watch won't take cellular calls not because the technology is unavailable or impractical, but simply because Apple doesn't want it to happen.
So you are predicting they will not offer cellular technology in the next version of the watch, or that it will not take calls? Noted, right up there with "640k should be enough for anyone" as demonstrating a total lack of understanding the technology market at all, much less Apple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They had better make sure if they release that watch that it can't steal the wearers information if it is hacked, by having hardware switches for all input devices. I can just imagine a hacker using a heart beat sensor to force a heart attack on a wearer. Don't deny it, you are a bad person.
Whatever you say Jessie Venutura.
By way of reference, I consider the smaller Apple Watch to be overly large for a watch but I still wear it because I enjoy the feature set. Anything larger is pure Mayor Of Geekville.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The obvious use case for this is the fitness market. If you use something like Strava, right now you need a fitness device + a phone capable of talking to the fitness device. Once a fitness device has a dellular capability, it can get your running/cycling segments, upload activities, do live tracking without needing a phone to talk to the servers. This will be a real killer for the Garmins and the Polars of this world. The other good use case would be health monitoring - for the diabetics, etc. There are probably many, many others.
Look, I've just learned how to wear a tie and it's enough trouble already. I'll order an iPhone tie if it's cheap enough and allows me to get work.
But I don't think I would ever want a watch capable of breaking my tie. If this where wearable computing is headed to I'm sorry I'll have to say I am not very interested thanks.
Man, you're just another trend-chaser. My sundial hasn't needed a charge since 7600 BC.
And it never lights up in the middle of the night destroying my night vision.
Well next time try asking.
Or was the point to just air your opinion??????
If the "something we've lost" is the ability to not charge your phone for a couple of weeks, it isn't something people care about. Plugging your phone in at night (when you're asleep anyway) isn't the burden that "feature phone" enthusiasts paint it out to be.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for