No it's not. While it's definitely a nice piece of tech all the smartphone addicts who heavily use Whatsapp, Instagram, an email client, etc want a device with a large screen, virtual keyboard and a camera. Don't tell us that AI and voice commands will replace this.
The Apple watch will dominate all health and fitness based use cases though.
I agree with you, but I don't think that's what the author's point was.
You'll still probably carry your iPhone with you, but it'll probably stay in your pocket or bag more often than not. And you're right, the Apple Watch will never replace the functions you cited.
I've been using smartphones for years, and I'm definitely someone that's very tied to e-mails and phone calls. Yet I'd rather remove the distraction. I don't need to be 100% available all day, everyday.
The Watch will let me respond to e-mails, messages, and phone calls without pulling out my phone. If it's something more involved, I can pull out my phone. Beyond that, I can wait until I get back to my desk.
The Watch + AirPods won't completely replace the iPhone, it will complement it. Just like the iPad and MacBook does. None of those verticals are particularly large for Apple, and will never touch the iPhone. They simply mop up the periphery users like me that will actually use it. Everyone else is perfectly served by the iPhone.
For me that feature has been worth every penny. I'm constantly getting emails; if one comes in after business hours, 95% of the time it can wait until the next morning. But 5% of the time it can't, so I've always got to pull out my phone to check. With the watch, I can just glance quickly and go back to whatever I was doing.
(I'm somewhat resentful of journalists always interjecting the narrative in articles about the Watch that it's an underlying symptom of people being addicted to their phones. For a lot of people, being available is part of the job. The Apple Watch is the modern equivalent of a pager.)
For fitness and heart rate tracking it's pretty nice. Add in alerts and other integrations and the AW quickly become something I was skeptical of, to something I wear every day.
And while minor, the geek in me smiles every time my MBP logs me in automatically using the AW.
That can't possibly be the case. A big point made during the latest keynote was that the watch will now report heart arrhythmia and that wouldn't be possible if the tracking was intermittent. It's probably close to something like the FitBit where it tracks every 5 minutes or something. That's enough to get rate information for things like arrhythmia while saving battery life enough to make it last 1.5 days on a charge.
There's a picture on this page where the Apple Watch shows "current" heart rate from "2m ago", so yes it can possibly be intermittent. Perhaps they can detect arrhythmia without continuous measurements. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-...
According to their website, FitBit only offers continuous tracking (known as PurePulse) on a few of its models.
My point was that the new OS update must track continuously or more frequently than it was originally done because it wouldn't be able to detect arrhythmia otherwise. It already tracks continuously when you're doing a workout or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater than your resting heart rate and the technology that is used on the Apple Watch to detect the rate is exactly the same as the PurePulse found on Fitbits. It's green LEDs and photodiodes. Unlike the FitBit, though, the Apple Watch also offers infrared heart rate detection, although that's only used as a backup.
I don't get what point you would be making if your "a few of its models" comment were true. Obviously any Fitbit that would come up in the context of an Apple Watch discussion is going to be one with purepulse. And in fact according to https://www.fitbit.com/purepulse there are 4 models in addition to Ionic that have it, i.e. 5 out of 8 trackers.
I don't know where you're getting the "or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater" part. Outside of workout mode it measures intermittently when you're still according to https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666 "When does Apple Watch measure your heart rate".
There's more to technology than hardware. Apple Watch can't do continuous all-day heart rate like Fitbit does even though the hardware is largely the same.
Only because it needs the battery to do the litany of other things it does. As for your "or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater" question... that comes from my actual use of the watch. I sometimes forget to put the watch into Workout mode. If I go into the Health app afterwards, I can see that the frequency of measurement goes up when the watch detects that my heart rate is above my resting heart rate. It goes from being sporadic to being continuous until it detects it go back down. So it's not that it can't do it, it just doesn't do it to conserve battery life. The Fitbits don't really have much else going on that requires the battery so they can run continuously all day. Additionally, according to most medical uses and reviews of the Apple Watch, it's more accurate than many stand-alone heart rate monitors so, as battery life improves, the watch can only go up from here.
Exactly. I've had an LTE Android watch for a few months now, and while it's great for quick tasks and staying connected when I'm out for a walk or run I still find myself pulling out my phone whenever I need to do anything meaningful. The watch is great for notifications, but the screen is too small for it to replace the phone for daily use.
I believe that's a network thing vs anything unique to Apple. I'm a T-Mobile customer and I can use a single line across multiple devices today via their Digits service. I believe AT&T has a similar offering.
Because it already has? If you look at watches (not the fitbit step counter band type devices), the AW has outsold everyone one else. I see AWs all the time. Non-techie friends who I play bball with are showing up with AWs now, and these are people who never would have tried any other sport type band. The common theme among these people is that the health tracking drew them in, but all the other features with alerts, etc... end up being really useful.
AW could mean both Apple Watch and Android Wear. I understand what you mean by context, but please be more careful with acronyms.
Regarding your point, I think it's probably right. Just like compact cameras are better at taking pictures than smartphones are, a lot of people will probably settle for good enough and use a device that can do lots of things pretty well.
Huh, certainly not where I live. Everyone has a Garmin, or maybe a Fitbit GPS, it's practically cliche. Better metrics, miles better battery life, and nobody I've talked to cares about email on their wrist...
I love how OP is dismissing the grand claim in the title only to immediately go on to make another, equally silly one.
Garmin is selling more of their watches than ever before. This has the same useless HR, no external sensors and battery won't last through a marathon. It's an expensive gadget for people who like to think they are exercising by doing 10 repeats of 5 kg weights and 5 minutes of social media in between.
There's long term dynamics: just as people first prefered a small phone over a large tablet, and now buy near-tablet sized phones (iPhone X is 5.8") that better match their usage today... watches may well grow in size and features (camera) in the future.
Fitness-specific devices (e.g. fitbit) seem more popular than the general-purpose apple watch... at least, so far.
BTW non-screen control (eg voice control, buttons on headphones) seem logical for watches, but apple experimented with this already with the iPod shuffle, but removed it in the next version.
Is this a satire? Because you are framing this exactly the same as command line vs GUI and hardware keyboard vs touch screen debates. I don't think apple has the watch figured out but something will replace the phone.
Here in Canada a wireless plan that would allow me to stream Apple Music constantly throughout the day would cost a frigging fortune, I mean hundreds and hundreds of dollars per month.
I like the idea but right now it's not practical given the (sad) state of wireless data cost, at least here in Canada.
It's the data overage charges that he's referring to. We pay upwards of $80 a month for 6GB. Tack on $10 more for AW, but you're still going to blow through 6GB.
I've been streaming music and radio over my TMO One plan ($100 month for 2 lines) line for a long time and have never come close to hitting their soft caps.
My hope is that it'll be a very near future for me. I spend a good 70%+ of my waking life in front of a screen. I really don't need it when I'm out and about.
If I need to deal with something with more than a quick dictated sentence, I'll get to a computer and address it head on. If it's REALLY important and it needs my attention immediately, then we'll talk on the phone.
> completely redefine the mobile ecosystem over the next couple of years.
I object to the "completely" part. The key issue is applications, smartwatches are still a solution searching for a problem. The Apple Watch has a clear mass appeal but its uses are still far from being a "killer application".
Without messaging and mobile web the mobile ecosystem wouldn't have happened. What are their equivalents to smartwatches?
> The key issue is applications, smartwatches are still a solution searching for a problem.
No they aren't, they're just not yet appealing to everyone. Running with my Apple Watch (Series 2 GPS) and Airpods has literally changed my life for the better. It's incredibly freeing to have no iPhone on my armband and track things like time, heart rate, speed and cadence without holding anything at all or having wires bouncing around my shoulders.
And that's just fitness! I also cook a lot; having a phone call through my watch is amazing, especially when I combine it with my Airpods. My hands can be sticky, dirty, etc and I don't even need to hold anything or carry it with me.
Just because it doesn't appeal to you and your lifestyle doesn't mean it is a "solution searching for a problem."
I feel the Apple Watch in particular will suffer from the singularness of its design. Android Wear might be clunky, but at least its watches have a variety of body shapes and materials. Aside from bands, there's no such choice in the Apple ecosystem: buying one means buying into the Apple look. People want to differentiate themselves by the things they wear on their bodies, and even the best industrial design or technology won't necessarily lure them over.
This is a weird comment to make now. When Apple Watch was first released, maybe. But now? It's already more popular than all other smart watches combined, and it's apparently the best-selling watch in the world period. Not entirely sure if that's by revenue or units, but regardless, it seems pretty clear that your assumption is wrong.
Yes, it's popular. I'm only responding to the claim that the Apple Watch is "The Future", i.e. as ubiquitous as the smartphone. I just can't picture the majority of any population wearing a watch with the exact same body. That's not how fashion works!
If smart watches are successful, it's far more likely that we'll eventually see a 20-80 Apple/Android split like we do today.
While that would certainly work for some people, for others it's all about the body. After all, it's the designer's signature and the first thing people usually see.
For me, a watch is a very personal thing, and I'd never want to wear a multinational tech company's design on my wrist, unless I needed it for work or exercise.
Apple still requires you to have an iPhone, which reduces the appeal of the cellular-equipped Series 3 watch. It's a disappointment.
> "Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) requires an iPhone 6 or later with iOS 11 or later. Apple Watch and iPhone service provider must be the same."
> Apple still requires you to have an iPhone, which reduces the appeal of the cellular-equipped Series 3 watch. It's a disappointment.
To people who don't have an iPhone, yes, it's a disappointment.
Given iPhone sales numbers, though, I don't think that market is Apple's primary concern. Non-iPhone owners are usually said to be more price-conscious (preferring cheaper/better/whatever Android phones), and those owners have always had choices for alternative watches that are cheaper/better/whatever than the Apple Watch.
Apple's flexing their market muscle here by forcing cell phone vendors to sell cheap plans that share the same phone number between the iPhone and the Watch, which makes it pretty exciting for those of us in the US with expensive plans. It's easier for me to justify $10/mo for my Watch to have connectivity with exactly the same phone number as my iPhone back at home.
Hmm, is it true that the new Apple Watch doesn't support roaming at all (meaning it's useless without phone when traveling) and doesn't allow you to even change/choose the operator after purchase?
I think most of those articles have a very big USA centric view.
In the USA, Apple has more less a 40-45% market share depending of the time of the year and perhapsd is there where Apple Watch and AirPods can be "the future".
But with less than 20% of the market worlwide, I ddoubt that they will be "the future".
According to the keynote, AW series 3 will support a limited list of carriers at launch so I'm curious as to how the eSIM which AW3 uses is implemented?
Looks like users on unsupported carriers depend on Apple to enter into a commercial agreement for cellular to work with their carrier?
OP is going to have to wait a _long_ time for apple to change the form factor of the air pods. Apples has only had maybe 3 headphone design changes in since the iPod.
Apple could take a dump on the dinner table that suckers would still be lining up to scoop it up though. Just because it sells doesn't mean it's a transforming, industry-shaping piece of tech. Fidget spinners sold like crazy as well. Mark my words, AW will be a thing of the past in 18 months to 2 years.
It's not a two doller item, my friend. So how many tens or hundreds of millions do they have to sell for it to become a thing? lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
Let's do it then. The form factor is somewhat of an in-between in my opinion. A step in the good direction, but too small to be really useful on the long run. Something like Google Glass (not necessary Glass itself, but something similar / improved) combined with hand gestures has more potential I think. Though we'll see, I might be wrong about this one but I really don't see smart watches still being a thing in 2020.
"The future is the hardest thing to predict." I just made that up, AFAIK, but I wrapped it in quotes to encourage reuse. ;)
"The future is fickle." Seems on point as well.
If I close my eyes and imagine the future, all the gadgets disappear, and only information remains, feeding sensation and aware of intention. Conversations with omnipresent disembodied voices when I'm feeling old school.
Edit: Too bad this is a 5 day old thread. It's my own comment I would most upvote if that were possible. ;)
I agree that this combination will become massively popular now that Apple's finally made it a thing. It kind of makes me wish I had gotten the LTE version of the Gear S3 instead of the WiFi only one.
64 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadThe Apple watch will dominate all health and fitness based use cases though.
You'll still probably carry your iPhone with you, but it'll probably stay in your pocket or bag more often than not. And you're right, the Apple Watch will never replace the functions you cited.
I've been using smartphones for years, and I'm definitely someone that's very tied to e-mails and phone calls. Yet I'd rather remove the distraction. I don't need to be 100% available all day, everyday.
The Watch will let me respond to e-mails, messages, and phone calls without pulling out my phone. If it's something more involved, I can pull out my phone. Beyond that, I can wait until I get back to my desk.
The Watch + AirPods won't completely replace the iPhone, it will complement it. Just like the iPad and MacBook does. None of those verticals are particularly large for Apple, and will never touch the iPhone. They simply mop up the periphery users like me that will actually use it. Everyone else is perfectly served by the iPhone.
We are having one of those conversations about the future with current technology at current prices? Again...
(I'm somewhat resentful of journalists always interjecting the narrative in articles about the Watch that it's an underlying symptom of people being addicted to their phones. For a lot of people, being available is part of the job. The Apple Watch is the modern equivalent of a pager.)
And while minor, the geek in me smiles every time my MBP logs me in automatically using the AW.
There's a picture on this page where the Apple Watch shows "current" heart rate from "2m ago", so yes it can possibly be intermittent. Perhaps they can detect arrhythmia without continuous measurements. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-...
My point was that the new OS update must track continuously or more frequently than it was originally done because it wouldn't be able to detect arrhythmia otherwise. It already tracks continuously when you're doing a workout or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater than your resting heart rate and the technology that is used on the Apple Watch to detect the rate is exactly the same as the PurePulse found on Fitbits. It's green LEDs and photodiodes. Unlike the FitBit, though, the Apple Watch also offers infrared heart rate detection, although that's only used as a backup.
I don't know where you're getting the "or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater" part. Outside of workout mode it measures intermittently when you're still according to https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666 "When does Apple Watch measure your heart rate".
There's more to technology than hardware. Apple Watch can't do continuous all-day heart rate like Fitbit does even though the hardware is largely the same.
https://twitter.com/sainiankur/status/911347017959518208
https://atap.google.com/soli/
Compared to GPS sports watches? How do you figure?
Regarding your point, I think it's probably right. Just like compact cameras are better at taking pictures than smartphones are, a lot of people will probably settle for good enough and use a device that can do lots of things pretty well.
Garmin is selling more of their watches than ever before. This has the same useless HR, no external sensors and battery won't last through a marathon. It's an expensive gadget for people who like to think they are exercising by doing 10 repeats of 5 kg weights and 5 minutes of social media in between.
Fitness-specific devices (e.g. fitbit) seem more popular than the general-purpose apple watch... at least, so far.
BTW non-screen control (eg voice control, buttons on headphones) seem logical for watches, but apple experimented with this already with the iPod shuffle, but removed it in the next version.
I like the idea but right now it's not practical given the (sad) state of wireless data cost, at least here in Canada.
In Canada (as far as I know, for consumer plans) we have none.
If I need to deal with something with more than a quick dictated sentence, I'll get to a computer and address it head on. If it's REALLY important and it needs my attention immediately, then we'll talk on the phone.
I object to the "completely" part. The key issue is applications, smartwatches are still a solution searching for a problem. The Apple Watch has a clear mass appeal but its uses are still far from being a "killer application".
Without messaging and mobile web the mobile ecosystem wouldn't have happened. What are their equivalents to smartwatches?
No they aren't, they're just not yet appealing to everyone. Running with my Apple Watch (Series 2 GPS) and Airpods has literally changed my life for the better. It's incredibly freeing to have no iPhone on my armband and track things like time, heart rate, speed and cadence without holding anything at all or having wires bouncing around my shoulders.
And that's just fitness! I also cook a lot; having a phone call through my watch is amazing, especially when I combine it with my Airpods. My hands can be sticky, dirty, etc and I don't even need to hold anything or carry it with me.
Just because it doesn't appeal to you and your lifestyle doesn't mean it is a "solution searching for a problem."
If smart watches are successful, it's far more likely that we'll eventually see a 20-80 Apple/Android split like we do today.
You know how cell phones have lots of different cases? The body is the same, but people just wrap it in different "fashionable" cases?
The Watch is the same thing: just get different bands (or even cases, if you're super-individualist.) (Source: Hermès owner with multiple bands)
For me, a watch is a very personal thing, and I'd never want to wear a multinational tech company's design on my wrist, unless I needed it for work or exercise.
> "Apple Watch Series 3 (GPS + Cellular) requires an iPhone 6 or later with iOS 11 or later. Apple Watch and iPhone service provider must be the same."
To people who don't have an iPhone, yes, it's a disappointment.
Given iPhone sales numbers, though, I don't think that market is Apple's primary concern. Non-iPhone owners are usually said to be more price-conscious (preferring cheaper/better/whatever Android phones), and those owners have always had choices for alternative watches that are cheaper/better/whatever than the Apple Watch.
Apple's flexing their market muscle here by forcing cell phone vendors to sell cheap plans that share the same phone number between the iPhone and the Watch, which makes it pretty exciting for those of us in the US with expensive plans. It's easier for me to justify $10/mo for my Watch to have connectivity with exactly the same phone number as my iPhone back at home.
In the USA, Apple has more less a 40-45% market share depending of the time of the year and perhapsd is there where Apple Watch and AirPods can be "the future".
But with less than 20% of the market worlwide, I ddoubt that they will be "the future".
Looks like users on unsupported carriers depend on Apple to enter into a commercial agreement for cellular to work with their carrier?
OK, I’ll remind you.
"The future is fickle." Seems on point as well.
If I close my eyes and imagine the future, all the gadgets disappear, and only information remains, feeding sensation and aware of intention. Conversations with omnipresent disembodied voices when I'm feeling old school.
Edit: Too bad this is a 5 day old thread. It's my own comment I would most upvote if that were possible. ;)