iWatch Concept Images Show Curved Screen, Thick Band, and Sensors

[macs4nw]

It will be interesting to find out how Apple is going to solve the two-size?-fit-all vs wear comfort vs continuous skin contact dilemma; in addition to a 'few' other challenges, of course.

 

[MacFly123]

This is the best concept I have seen! It makes me drool and I am not even a watch person

 

[lordofthereef]

I don't expect the actual product to look anything like this. Well, I expect it to have a band...

 

[charlituna]

It's informing us of potentially what the watch might look like or have... why do you have to be THAT guy?/QUOTE]

Given that none of it has any speck of truthful info, not really

 

[jadot]

Exclusive

This was sent to me today from an unnamed source who 'has had an idea' of what Apple have designed. I think he's got the inside track on this, but just remember: you heard it here first.

 

[beetlejuice44]

I'm not getting the full usage concept of the iWatch, if your phone will remain the main tasking tool.

Negatives:
1) No two handed typing/browsing

2) screen bends too fast for full viewing capability, unless a hologram APP is in effect (i.e.: star wars)

3) Assuming iCloud will communicate with both your iPhone and iWatch, which will become the parent device? I'm guessing both - almost like having two iPhones IMP.

 

[MrXiro]

It's informing us of potentially what the watch might look like or have... why do you have to be THAT guy?/QUOTE]

Given that none of it has any speck of truthful info, not really

Isn't that within the definition or the word "rumor"?
It may or may not be true. Speculation still falls within rumors... I mean this to me is more credible than anything an "Analyst" has to say.

 

[charlituna]

Isn't that within the definition or the word "rumor"?
It may or may not be true. Speculation still falls within rumors... I mean this to me is more credible than anything an "Analyst" has to say.

More credible by perhaps .000001 of a point.

The comment was that this shows us what the whole thing might look like. Given it is based in nothing concrete no it doesn't. It shows us what some self described creative pulled out of his ass about a product that is still just a rumor whether it even exists. Or will any time soon.

Now show me a patent by Apple and you have a design that might show us what a final product could look like

 

[IJ Reilly]

Isn't that within the definition or the word "rumor"?
It may or may not be true. Speculation still falls within rumors... I mean this to me is more credible than anything an "Analyst" has to say.

Actually, not... to be a rumor, it has to have some potential to be true. This is nothing more than a detailed speculation, and that is not the same thing as a rumor.

----------

More credible by perhaps .000001 of a point.

The comment was that this shows us what the whole thing might look like. Given it is based in nothing concrete no it doesn't. It shows us what some self described creative pulled out of his ass about a product that is still just a rumor whether it even exists. Or will any time soon.

Now show me a patent by Apple and you have a design that might show us what a final product could look like

Exactly. It's more a like a speculation based on a rumor.

 

[MrXiro]

Actually, not... to be a rumor, it has to have some potential to be true. This is nothing more than a detailed speculation, and that is not the same thing as a rumor.

----------



Exactly. It's more a like a speculation based on a rumor.

There is "some" potential to be true... we know they are working on a watch by now don't we? This is merely speculation on what it "could" look like.

And to CharliTuna... if there was an Apple Patent then wouldn't it in fact be implemented as a "fact" rather than a "rumor"?

Maybe my definition of "rumor" is looser than yours...
Example; when you were in high school and there was a "rumor" about "Jenny being a floozy", just because she smiles a lot to a lot of guys, isn't that still just a rumor?

 

[IJ Reilly]

There is "some" potential to be true... we know they are working on a watch by now don't we? This is merely speculation on what it "could" look like.

And to CharliTuna... if there was an Apple Patent then wouldn't it in fact be implemented as a "fact" rather than a "rumor"?

Maybe my definition of "rumor" is looser than yours...
Example; when you were in high school and there was a "rumor" about "Jenny being a floozy", just because she smiles a lot to a lot of guys, isn't that still just a rumor?

So little as to be unmeasurable. Actually we don't know that they are working on a "watch" -- this is something that was fabricated entirely in rumorland, without a shred of evidence to support it that I've seen. In fact, Apple making a "watch" is about as far from the likely truth of what they'd do with wearable tech as anything I can imagine.

These mockups are nothing more than efforts by design studios to draw attention to themselves. They are based on thin air.

 

[MrXiro]

So little as to be unmeasurable. Actually we don't know that they are working on a "watch" -- this is something that was fabricated entirely in rumorland, without a shred of evidence to support it that I've seen. In fact, Apple making a "watch" is about as far from the likely truth of what they'd do with wearable tech as anything I can imagine.

These mockups are nothing more than efforts by design studios to draw attention to themselves. They are based on thin air.

Based on the evidence and speculation it's about as solid a rumor as the iPhone was in 2006

Seen here:
https://www.macrumors.com/2006/03/19/more-apple-iphone-evidence-4th-quarter-2006/

This article is about how the possible iWatch could implement sensors into it's design.

I don't know why anyone would complain about articles that tie into Apple products on MacRumors... would you rather them post nothing at all? If all they posted were facts on this site we'd get maybe 2 posts a day tops... 3-4 on a good day.

Not sure why anyone is even complaining about the content posted on a rumor blog site.

 

[hybrid_x]

iCuff?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Based on the evidence and speculation it's about as solid a rumor as the iPhone was in 2006

Seen here:
https://www.macrumors.com/2006/03/19/more-apple-iphone-evidence-4th-quarter-2006/

This article is about how the possible iWatch could implement sensors into it's design.

I don't know why anyone would complain about articles that tie into Apple products on MacRumors... would you rather them post nothing at all? If all they posted were facts on this site we'd get maybe 2 posts a day tops... 3-4 on a good day.

Not sure why anyone is even complaining about the content posted on a rumor blog site.

Out of context. The rumors of an Apple phone were present for many years, and it's known now that it went through many iterations before the iPhone as we know it was born. Some of the details surfaced before then, and the product had a basic logic to it that a watch lacks. So no, it isn't the same.

As I said above, the only evidence we have that anything of this sort is even in the pipeline is a remark by Tim Cook about Apple's interest in "wearable tech." From that point on, it morphed into the ridiculous concept of a watch (because that's what others were doing), and got stuck with the equally ridiculous name "iWatch." None of this flows from any concept that Apple is likely to actually build, or a name they are likely to use.

And again, as I said above, MR would be doing everyone a service if they pulled together what is known and combined it with what is possible and probable, instead of promoting every hair brained concept no matter how ludicrous and illogical it might be. Look at how many people in every one of these threads gripe about how they aren't going to buy a watch, even if it was made by Apple. Well, it isn't going to happen anyway, so why promote the idea? If some actual thought is applied, I think it becomes hugely apparent that Apple is not going to sell a watch.

It isn't the rumors that bug me (obviously) it is the lack of imagination that's applied to combing them with what we know about the market and way Apple approaches markets, which isn't exactly nothing. Consequently the discussion is reduced to random noise, when it could actually be interesting, and possibly even informative. What I am griping about here is a total lack of synthesis, and a total lack of selectivity.

 

[MrXiro]

Out of context. The rumors of an Apple phone were present for many years, and it's known now that it went through many iterations before the iPhone as we know it was born. Some of the details surfaced before then, and the product had a basic logic to it that a watch lacks. So no, it isn't the same.

As I said above, the only evidence we have that anything of this sort is even in the pipeline is a remark by Tim Cook about Apple's interest in "wearable tech." From that point on, it morphed into the ridiculous concept of a watch (because that's what others were doing), and got stuck with the equally ridiculous name "iWatch." None of this flows from any concept that Apple is likely to actually build, or a name they are likely to use.

And again, as I said above, MR would be doing everyone a service if they pulled together what is known and combined it with what is possible and probable, instead of promoting every hair brained concept no matter how ludicrous and illogical it might be. Look at how many people in every one of these threads gripe about how they aren't going to buy a watch, even if it was made by Apple. Well, it isn't going to happen anyway, so why promote the idea? If some actual thought is applied, I think it becomes hugely apparent that Apple is not going to sell a watch.

It isn't the rumors that bug me (obviously) it is the lack of imagination that's applied to combing them with what we know about the market and way Apple approaches markets, which isn't exactly nothing. Consequently the discussion is reduced to random noise, when it could actually be interesting, and possibly even informative. What I am griping about here is a total lack of synthesis, and a total lack of selectivity.

I see it differently, the 6th gen iPod Nano was the precursor for the Apple Watch device. After putting a clock face on the device they've tapped into the market of a wearable watch-like device that interfaces with their iOS devices. Saying that Apple WON'T make a watch in my opinion false... unlikely to release said watch is a possibility though. But their is more evidence pointing to them actually looking into making said "iWatch" devices than their is evidence disproving it.

I think especially with the most recent medical sensor expert hirings at Apple that an all encompassing watch + health monitoring device is in the works.
See; http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...er-medical-sensor-expert-as-iwatch-hype-grows

The question on my mind isn't IF apple would build this device... but how it will differ and change the landscape of the devices that have already been released on the market.

 

[MrXiro]

I am really itching to get a Pebble right now...

 

[Drunken Master]

It looks like a Livestrong bracelet that's swallowing an iPhone.

 

[sully0612]

Will be nice to have a functional ios compatible watch combination health tracker with heart rate monitor.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I see it differently, the 6th gen iPod Nano was the precursor for the Apple Watch device. After putting a clock face on the device they've tapped into the market of a wearable watch-like device that interfaces with their iOS devices. Saying that Apple WON'T make a watch in my opinion false... unlikely to release said watch is a possibility though. But their is more evidence pointing to them actually looking into making said "iWatch" devices than their is evidence disproving it.

I think especially with the most recent medical sensor expert hirings at Apple that an all encompassing watch + health monitoring device is in the works.
See; http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...er-medical-sensor-expert-as-iwatch-hype-grows

The question on my mind isn't IF apple would build this device... but how it will differ and change the landscape of the devices that have already been released on the market.

I wouldn't call a discontinued product a precursor to doing more of the same. In fact I'd use it as powerful evidence that Apple is going entirely in a different direction. Knowing the history of the company this seems like a slam-dunk to me.

Apple will very likely release some sort of wearable tech, but it won't be a watch, and they won't call it a watch. To call it a watch would be to associate it with both ancient, single purpose technology, and the wonky and mostly useless smart watches being sold by others. They haven't worked on this product for so long to take such an obvious path to something they could have done years ago (and in fact, did do years ago).

Because this is Apple, they will break out into new territory. What that new territory will be, we don't know yet, but we have some good hints. Calling it a watch is to not take into account what we know, and also to forget that Apple is the company that doesn't do the obvious thing. Because it is focused almost entirely on the concept of a watch, most of the speculation lacks imagination. It's is too locked into essentially failed concepts that I have little doubt Apple has already rejected.

 

[Carl Sagan]

Because they start with the wrong premise.

What's the right one?

 

[Z8beema]

I liked the first band I watch concept better than this

 

[vartanarsen]

Steve would never have…..

 

[IJ Reilly]

What's the right one?

This:

Apple will very likely release some sort of wearable tech, but it won't be a watch, and they won't call it a watch. To call it a watch would be to associate it with both ancient, single purpose technology, and the wonky and mostly useless smart watches being sold by others. They haven't worked on this product for so long to take such an obvious path to something they could have done years ago (and in fact, did do years ago).

Because this is Apple, they will break out into new territory. What that new territory will be, we don't know yet, but we have some good hints. Calling it a watch is to not take into account what we know, and also to forget that Apple is the company that doesn't do the obvious thing. Because it is focused almost entirely on the concept of a watch, most of the speculation lacks imagination. It's is too locked into essentially failed concepts that I have little doubt Apple has already rejected.

And this:

The only relevant comment (that I can recall) from anyone at Apple is Tim Cook saying that the company is interested in "wearable tech." Somewhere along the line this concept morphed into a "smart watch" and then to the name "iWatch" without any reason or logic that I can follow. So instead of looking at ideas that are grounded in any sort of reality (or give Apple any credit for having an imagination), we get an endless line of garbage concepts like this.

Pretty much covers it.

 

[Lepton]

"How tall is a Giraffe"
'Sorry iWatch cannot take requests at the moment'

"The answer is (13 to 20) feet."

But I admit I've seen "I'm really sorry about this, but I can't take any requests right now..." too often. However, and this really bugs me, if I immediately re-ask, it always gets through. Why didn't it just try a tiny bit harder/longer?

 

[Lepton]

In the future, I'll wonder why anyone would wanna take their phone out of their pocket to check notifications. An iWatch would be so convenient for me. As long as it doesn't look stupid.

Basically, I think an iWatch should be able to do everything you can do on the iPhone lock screen. Time, weather, next appointment, stocks, notifications, control iPhone audio, set alarms talk to Siri... It's a lot of stuff. Well, maybe not the flashlight, or the camera... but being a remote shutter for the camera? Yep.

What's that phone that has an opening in its cover so you can see time and stuff? Old and busted. The iWatch? Galaxies better.