After the rumblings and grumblings that we’ll get our first look at the Apple Watch 2 in as soon as three months, the Internet is ablaze with all of the great features the update “should” have. But let’s not go overboard, here, because not all of these suggestions would make the new wearable better.
We aren’t talking about Android compatibility, complete independence from its paired phone, or a better battery life; we’d welcome any of those updates in a second. But we couldn’t really see a need or want for a few of the rumored/desired new features, regardless of how crazy awesome they might seem at first.
A FaceTime camera
Photo: Tribune Media Services
This first update is probably the one most likely to actually show up in the Apple Watch 2, but we don’t really see the point. We suppose the idea is to finally turn the smartwatch into the ostensibly cool gadget from Dick Tracy (ask your parents), but do you know what they never addressed in that comic strip? How tired and sore Dick Tracy’s arm must have been all the time.
We think the current Apple Watch’s ability to remotely control the iPhone’s camera is pretty cool, but that doesn’t mean it needs one of its own. People don’t even like it when we voice-call them from our watches. They’ve said that directly. And we doubt it would be an epidemic or anything, a camera that small could help already creepy people creep more easily.
If Apple can think of an elegant way to incorporate a camera into the Apple Watch 2, we’ll give it a shot. But we can’t imagine having an entire video conversation into our wrists, especially considering all of the awkward contortions we already have to do just to use Apple Pay at a lot of places.
Round cases
Photo: Oh NamKyung
We get it: The square cases on the Apple Watch are a bit surprising. But they make sense considering busy configurations like the Modular face and Apple’s recent focus on customizing your device with your own photos. That isn’t to say that those features are completely impossible with a round watch, but we like the square one specifically because it doesn’t look like other watches. Not that we’d mind if the Apple Watch 2 is thinner, of course, but the shape can stay.
A strap all full of blinky lights
Rumblings of a smart strap capable of delivering information via embedded LEDs (or something similar) began with a patent application last week which describes flexible displays built into the band itself. And that’s potentially cool, but Apple Watch bands are expensive enough as they are, and ground-breaking tech won’t help that cause at all.
Photo: TriStar Pictures
We’d be interested to see a more capable band, sure, but what if Apple found a way to build a battery into the thing to help out its buddy struggling up there in the case? Or what if it had additional sensors for more health diagnostics? That second application isn’t likely, however. Company head Tim Cook recently said that putting an Apple Watch through the FDA’s approval process would skewer the production schedule.
This doesn’t rule out a standalone Apple fitness band, however, which would be a more likely use for the embedded screen to keep the otherwise display-free device’s form factor Apple-smooth (its new iPhone battery case excepted).
3D Touch
Photo: Apple
Maybe this one’s controversial, but we don’t see any point in expanding the current Apple Watch’s Force Touch function in the Apple Watch 2. The new iPhone 6s and 6s Plus feature 3D Touch, which can register three levels of contact (tap, kinda push, and totally push), while the Apple Watch can detect taps and pushes. And we think that’s just fine.
Despite some cool applications on the iPhone, we don’t see this feature being necessary on the Apple Watch 2 because smartwatches in general are intended for quick, discreet interactions. Adding granularity to a feature that was already pretty obscure and ambiguous when it launched doesn’t sound like the best idea ever, and neither does managing touch pressure and pop-up windows on a screen that small.
If Apple can make a case, though, we’d love to hear it.
Evan Killham is a freelance writer who lives in Nebraska and isn’t interested in football, so he has plenty of time to play and think about video games. He has written for Bitmob and GamesBeat and sometimes, he even goes outside. But not too often because he’s heard there are bees out there. Occasionally, companies send free units for review. Evan subscribes to Cult of Mac’s Reviews Policy and also does not keep the items he receives for possible coverage.
49 responses to “4 features the Apple Watch 2 doesn’t need”
valid points. only things IMO it needs is 1) extended battery (it doesnt have to be skinnier) 2) standalone OS
I agree. The obsession with making technology thinner at the cost of battery life has always baffled me. I wouldn’t mind the iPhone being as thick as the first one if it gave a more reasonable battery life.
Apple doesn’t make things thinner at the cost of battery life. They basically have target daily usage amounts, and try to ensure that the battery lasts that long. They shave as much off of it, not for thinness, but for weight reduction.
As of iPhone 5, too light actually became a thing. They added weight with force touch, but at this point weight isn’t really a selling point. I more often hear reviewers marvel that a product feels quality because it’s heavy.
Apple will brag about weight reduction if the phone happens to have it, but that doesn’t mean it was a design goal. It’s along the lines of “it’s not a flaw it’s a feature.”
Battery life I’m 50/50 on just since I’ve pulled 2 days out of my Apple watch consistently no problem even with some heavy use. You mentioning that it doesn’t have to be skinnier brings up a big thought though. I’m curious if they would make it bigger not just as in 38 and 42mm thicker. Maybe a 46mm is the bigger size instead of 42mm and either keep 38 as the small or move the small to 42, or maybe even offer 3 sizes. A bigger screen would then, or at least should offer more battery capacity available. Also a lot of battery is optimization people tend to forget. From the 6 to the 6s iPhones they dropped battery capacity but both of the 6s and 6s Plus still have outperformed their predecessors in battery life consistently by hours.
Second thing you mention standalone OS is a big point for me. The Apple Watch is suppose to have a Wifi “Cloud” mode that it can be used on but if I turn my phone or bluetooth off it very rarely actually kicks in. Even if it does for some reason it still requires my phone to open any apps which is really what disappointed me with WatchOS 2 as they so highly vocalized “native apps” which still all still require the iPhone even with apps updated to be native. So they really do need to focus on making the wifi connectivity and having truly standalone apps and a watchOS that can work on it’s own without reliance of an iPhone for 98% of the features.
well said!
Isn’t forced touch the same as 3D ?
No. Force Touch = tap, kinda tap. 3D Touch = tap, kinda tap, strong tap.
then watch is this on a watch:
Open Notifications , then press hard and hold, and you see the “Clear All”
Not sure what you mean by “Kinda tap”.
Yeah, tap like all iPhones have been since day one, push, then push slightly harder to lock something or completely open it. So now with email, I can chose one in the list and push on it and it shows me an overview of it, and sometimes if it’s short enough, the whole thing, but if I push slightly harder, it opens it completely so I can reply, forward and do anything I need to it. Pictures work the same way. What I like 3D touch for though is the app short cuts. Instead of having to open an app and then choose what I want to do, I can push the app in the home screen and it drops open a menu and lets you choose an option which it then goes right to. It can potentially save you 2-3 steps sometimes.
Apple Watch would require hardware changes to get 3D Touch vs just Force Touch. There only is the one level beyond the tap for pressure recognition on the screen. So the hardest level of pressure(the second level of 3D Touch/hardest press) would need implemented in the screen technology to make it 3D Touch.
If it has GPS, is thinner and has better battery life I am on board. GPS is my sticking point though because I am a runner and the current apple watch just can’t compete with a Garmin for serious runners. I hate running with my phone.
Apple Watch has GPS. Only AW Sports don’t have it.
No models of the Apple Watch have GPS. Your statement is inaccurate.
No AW has built in GPS.
no it does not
The Apple Watch Sport is the only model with GPS.
I heard a lot of runner complain about GPS on watch
Unless the watch can make calls without a linked phone I will never go running without my phone, so for me native GPS is irrelevant at the moment. But I run in very rural areas so being able to place an emergency call if I get hurt is very important.
As another runner, I could easily survive without my phone for a single hour and I’d love AW to have built in GPS
It’s not a question of being away from my phone for an hour or so…it’s having the ability to call for help if I step in a hole and break something or any other number of things that could go wrong during a run. In the areas I live/run, if something goes wrong, it could be hours before someone happens to drive by.
Understandable. Personally living in a urban area that wouldn’t be a problem for me.
I think for the sports version, it will be very useful if it can be water proof. Especially for swimmers, rowers, surfers, etc. or anything that includes water sports.
Waterproof is a weird term right? I mean I’ve submerged my Apple watch while swimming and have worn it in the pool plenty of times. I know I can’t go diving with it though so what, is it? Water resistant?
Water resistant might be the correct term, I have been told by Apple that the watch is “splash proof”, i.e. if gotten wet for a short time, like rain drops, accidental spillage the warranty will cover that.
The AW is IPx7 water resistant, which means it survives under 1m of water for 30 minutes. Tests have shown you can put it under water for around 45 minutes without problems. I’ve never been worried about water with mine. I just have to finally get a waterproof band to replace my leather one…
Meh that is actual one bar of pressure for thirty minutes which not exactly the same thing. Take that thing off before you go to into the pool or into the ocean and put on a dive watch, they are much cooler. ;)
What I said is what Apple claims it to be, and it tests better. I don’t even care for a watch in the pool. I’m happy enough knowing it won’t get ruined by wearing it in the rain, especially now that I have a waterproof sport band for it.
Correct! It’s like someone calling a glove cut proof! That means under no circumstances can you cut it. lol Their cut resistant. All watches are basically water resistant to varying depths.
To get that thing truly water resistant would require a total redesign. I’m surprised people can swim with it. IDK if it is wise thing to bring a “splash proof” watch to the pool, the chemicals alone are eventually going to eat away at that thing and void the warrantee if submersion does not. Water resistance is a matter of sealing with o-rings and then placing those o-rings under presser so they prevent air leakage. That is why regular analog watches have a screw down crown to seal the watch if they are dive watches.
I’d be happy if they would just make sure the watch does everything it does now, but loads waaaay faster and maybe a slightly bigger battery. That will already be a huge improvement.
“Loads waaaay faster” is it really necessary for something to load in 0.99999999 of a second instead of 1.0 second? No it’s really not. Don’t be that exaggerative. Also the battery will stay the same. I don’t know how 2 days isn’t a good battery life especially when most smartphones last 1 day max.
Because everyone else uses the products the exact same way you do.
For an Apple product there is more lag than would be expected. You may have time to sit around waiting, but let’s not pretend it couldn’t be improved.
The Watch does register varying degrees of pressure, so it would only take a software update to enable a feature similar to 3D Touch, but the problem is it doesn’t really seem practical or there really isn’t a need for peek/pop and URL previews etc. on a Watch screen.
I could see a camera coming in handy, for example, if you are entering something you’ve eaten into MyFitnessPal and you want to quickly scan a barcode, or add an item to a grocery list using a barcode scanner. But a FaceTime camera seems kind of ridiculous to have.
It would be huge to have on-board speech-to-text processing, this seems to be the biggest delay, and super important to have when nearly all text entry is done by speaking.
Apple doesn’t make its products compatible with existing tech that cannot reasonably be replaced like bar codes. They introduce their own proprietary technology with royalties attached and expect everyone to adopt it.
iPhones don’t have IR blasters, Barcode emulation for 2d laser scanners (the clerks at the store always swear up and down you can’t scan a phone, but mobeam works every time), and many many other things. Apple would never add a camera for compatibility with free technologies, just look at their history, not going to happen.
No Force Touch?
I really need it for 1 purpose: locking and unlocking the watch during workouts (especially in winter, when the watch has physical contact with long sleeves )
no need: camera
needed: larger battery, GPS, better activity app (track recording and at least some rudimental social stuff)
Sorry, but a camera is the one feature it DOES need.
Really whats the point? It’d be a maybe 1.2mp camera. Holding the wrist up for calls already is a hassle and strain and nobody wants to be sharing 1.2mp or 720p or lower videos from a smartwatch.
Totally disagree on the shape. I want a watch that looks like a watch.
Disagree on the comment. You want a watch that looks like a clock. Not all watches are circular like a clock though. A good portion of watches are square or more rectangular or some other shape besides round. Round is just once you get into the “high end” thousands of dollar watches. Every watch I’ve ever personally owned hasn’t been circular either. From when I was a kid my cheap watch that was square with some superhero on it to my Nike+ SportWatch GPS to the Apple Watch Sport now.
“A good portion of watches are square or more rectangular or some other shape besides round.”
Um, no. A vast, vast majority of watches are circular. If you like square/rectangular watches, that’s fine, we can certainly disagree on that, but about 95% of watches, from the cheapest to the most expensive, are round.
It dose, there are plenty of “real” watches in that shape.
I overall just don’t get the battery concerns. The Apple Watch has a great battery life. If I do a lot in a day from 7 am to 11pm maybe my watch goes down to 30-40%. There are days though even with a good amount of use it’s still at 60-80%. So I just put it into the power reserve mode and it’s still at that percent in the morning ready for another full day. I’ve even had times I’m able to get at least halfway through a third day even. Plus it charges pretty fast too so it’s not like it’s sitting on the charger for 3 hours. I’ve never actually had it die completely in one full day of heavy use. That’s really the point too. You should be able to push it to the limit and get the full day and still be at 20%-50% which is possible to do on this first generation. Also there is no sleep tracking so it’s really doing nothing at night just draining battery on your wrist unless you really need those alarms to be on your wrist and not on a watch stand mode or your phone.
I wish it was round…
The lack of a camera is the main reason I did’t buy one. I use FaceTime more than phone calls and would love to be able to video chat with my kids through a watch when I’m away from home. Until they implement this, headphones are better than a watch for me, and the current one offers no compelling reason to buy except to show off.
Wouldnt it be awesome if it was round with a side camera and rotated… action videos while on a bike, motorcycle, action sports etc….
It’s an Apple product. It won’t even have features it *does* need!
This is revolutionary, this time we’re justifying the lack of features before we even know what’s missing!
In all seriousness, I’m pleasantly surprised by the constructive criticism on this cult of Mac article. I think I had CoM confused with Apple Insider. They actually are a cult. I was banned after a single detailed and educated post with no profanity or attacks on others because I dared to question Apple’s altruism.
3D touch very well may not be added because it will not work nearly as well on a watch as a matter of simple physics.
An iPhone has a firm “mount” in one of your hands. The amount of pressure applied to the sensors is that between your hand holding the phone and your hand that’s tapping. Once your calibrate your brain, the actions needed to create that pressure are very consistent. A watch on the other hand is often loosely mounted on one’s wrist, the amount of pressure transferred to the pressure sensor will depend on how the watch is sitting on the wrist and that’s constantly changing. That spells an inconsistent and confusing user experience.