Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Dec 2012 15:50 UTC
Apple "According to Chinese gadget news site Tech.163, Apple may be in the process of developing its own smart watch that connects to your Apple devices via Bluetooth. Based on the report, Intel will be working with Apple to create the smart watch, with a 1.5-inch PMOLED display made by RiTDisplays with ITO-coated glass." It must be the holiday lull. I'm this close to putting this in the joke category.
Thread beginning with comment 546516
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

That's a very expensive watch!

- Voice recognition - Why not relay your voice to the phone? My Bluetooth car kit has the option to activate my phone's voice recognition. The regular people I call are in the car's memory, others I dial using the phone's voice recognition,

- It MUST have 3-4-Whatever-G - What for? That would only make sense if it was a stand alone device. I'm looking for a watch that acts as an kind of remote for my phone.

- bluetooth connection with other device for:
--- Phone answer/reject (Must work in conjunction with a headset)
- Yes.

--- Read media from portable device (Music / Radio) (still has to work in conjunction with a headset). If by read you mean play, yes!

--- Biometric records and real-time advices for cardiovascular training (like a Polar Watch) (Another one commented about it and it's a good idea) - I guess it would be okay if it just received and displayed information, embedding a sensor increases the cost and size. If you use an external sensor you have a wider choice of brand/cost/quality.

--- Stream media to other devices (TV / Radio / Computer) It makes more sense for another device to do this, unless the watch itself contains the media. It would be fun though, although it's hard to make this a selling point.

- NFC for easy payments - Again I'd leave that to the phone, but it may be more convenient to make NFC payments using a watch than a phone.

- Cable-less charging - Kinetic charging would be nice, but it seems no smart phone does this so I guess that doesn't yield enough power. Wireless charging isn't very efficient (yet), but I do like the idea of it.

- Wifi (client and hotspot) - Perhaps a bit over-the-top for a watch, but why not. Doesn't make much sense if the watch doesn't have 3/4G though.

- Open protocols to communicate with a maximum of devices - Yes!

- And a little personal touch... Why not a little cyberpunk touch :-) - Animated wallpapers!!!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by MOS6510
by novad on Fri 28th Dec 2012 14:16 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

>> That's a very expensive watch!

For sure. It goes in the category of expensive gadget for niche market :-)

>> Why not relay your voice to the phone?

Only if the watch is a remote for a phone. In MY idea it would be a stand alone device (as I said... Only my idea)

>> It MUST have 3-4-Whatever-G - What for? That would only make sense if it was a stand alone device. I'm looking for a watch that acts as an kind of remote for my phone.


Well.. IF you have your phone with you it's nice to have a remote but I see it more like a standalone device. For me it's like some people who want a micro-laptop (Nothing against that) but who carry an external HDD, an external DVD, an external coffee machine with them (Well... You get the idea).

I see it as a replacement for a phone... Not in every context but where a phone would be inconvenient or simply undesired. The usage as a remote control for a phone is just an additional function for me.

>> If by read you mean play, yes!

Yes. That was what I ment :-)
As I said... My English is quiet poor... Sorry :-S

>> Embedding a sensor increases the cost and size. If you use an external sensor you have a wider choice of brand/cost/quality.

About the size. The sensor can be located in the watch strap and these kind of sensors are really small. I don't think it would change the size.

If there is an external sensor it should also be bluetooth. The price for such a sensor is quiet high if I remember well.

But anyway... Why not both... Internal sensor is there but you can connect to an external bluetooth sensor :-)

>> Stream media to other devices (TV / Radio / Computer) It makes more sense for another device to do this, unless the watch itself contains the media. It would be fun though, although it's hard to make this a selling point.

Well... For me it would be a nice point. It could stream to my autoradio, my friends TV/computer, whatever.

>> NFC for easy payments - Again I'd leave that to the phone, but it may be more convenient to make NFC payments using a watch than a phone.

In the standalone device scenario there is no phone to make the payment ;-)

>> (Wifi hotspot) Doesn't make much sense if the watch doesn't have 3/4G though.

True if it has no 3/4G... Untrue if it has... As it's a hypothetic device, I added 3G.

>> Animated wallpapers!!!

Why not :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 14:54 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Don't worry about your English, it's fine!

My assumption is that we all carry phones anyway and I don't think a watch is a very good replacement for a cell phone. I've seen them advertised, but I've never seen anyone use one or even claim to own one.

A phone needs to be held against an ear and smart phones need to surf the web, do email and run apps.

When you already have a phone I don't think it makes sense to duplicate any of its functions in another device, because you'd pay to have something you already have twice. Things 3/4G, GPS.

As the watch and phone are always close by you don't need WiFi, just Bluetooth. For me such a watch is a display to view information from the phone so you don't need to take it out.

If it's a stand alone watch it would be a poor experience, unless it had a big screen, which would be like wearing your phone on your wrist. A way around this would be if it had a small screen, but could make it bigger, projection or stream it to a TV, but then it would be still difficult to have any controls on the small screen.

I recently saw this keyboard that was projected on the desk. So it was a small device that projected a keyboard on to a surface and you typed on this surface (like a desk or table). Probably not as good as a real keyboard, but very interesting and it would save space. Turn it off and it's gone.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Mon 31st Dec 2012 00:05 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

- Cable-less charging - Kinetic charging would be nice, but it seems no smart phone does this so I guess that doesn't yield enough power. Wireless charging isn't very efficient (yet), but I do like the idea of it.

"Yet"? ...doesn't look like it can change much, physics stays the same.

But maybe kinetic charging would be enough for a simple(-ish) e-ink device - we move our hands more than pockets (where a smartphone mostly stays)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Mon 31st Dec 2012 06:01 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Physics stay the same (mostly), but techniques improve and/or change. If the charging mechanism were to improve more energy could be transferred.

I have wondered about this before, why not make a phone with kinetic and solar charging? It won't be enough to actually charge it (unless you keep it in the sun for hours or run a marathon with it), but it would extend its operational window.

If I'm very busy at work and don't use my iPhone during the day it's almost still full when I get home. Add kinetic charging and I'm pretty sure it would be very close to 100% charge.

Reply Parent Score: 2