It's similar to the theory that mandating a lower nicotine content in tobacco would curb addiction.
1. Typing messages on a keypad (T9 predictive), annoying as I usually just send messages for work 2. Swapping the sim card between two phones on the weekend / evenings
Battery life was phenomenal.
Does anyone know how to copy an Australian sim card?
As such I love the thought. It's nothing a dumb phone can't offer right now, but the convenience of it being in watch form would just be fantastic.
https://www.banggood.com/GW05-1_54-Screen-Camera-Smart-Watch...
Enjoy.
Developing for the Samsung Gear S2 was one of the most frustrating experiences in my life. Tizen is a trainwreck.
There are no games being changed with that platform.
For people who want to run and listen to Spotify this may be great.
But that stupid cell company fee will keep me away. Just like it keeps me off cellular iPads.
Maybe it isn't an option in your area, but a lot of people do have the option.
Because they're nice like that.
This entirely depends on your carrier. I have a single account for both iPhone and iPad wth 10Gb/mo to "spend" between them however I see fit. I'm with EE.
If adding a device to the pool also came with a little bit of extra data that might make it work out, but that's not the way it works.
Essentially I'm penalized for trying to use their services more. Instead of a nominal fee and making their money from selling more data, I have to pay a bigger fee just for the possibility of using the small pool I already have.
Not having to deal with tethering is not worth $10 a month to me.
I have a friend with a cellular Samsung watch. He pays an additional $5/mo.
And for extra cheapskate-ness you don't event get one extra GB when you do that. Pay more for less.
I didn't know watches were less. I can't find anything on Verizon's site (from a quick glance) that mentions them, only that "tablets and hotspots" are $10/mo.
Even at $60 I don't think I'd do it. I might for my iPad, but not my watch.
We don't need large screens to consume more content - we need content to look larger and more content to be seen in our eyes. I see wearables (watches, combined with earphones, and eyewear of some kind) becoming independent of a smartphone as one step forward in this evolution.
Another possibility for low energy devices is to have them use energy from outside the physical batteries in them. They could be light powered and use ambient light (for powering the gadget and recharging batteries), kind of like "solar powered" calculators that we've had for decades (that could be used for hours and still work with very less ambient light). The batteries would then act more like stand-in backups when ambient light isn't enough. This would require great gains in low energy processing (so I'm not comparing a calculator with a smartphone here). But I'm guessing this will also be an approach that'd be tried while we're on the way to getting significantly higher battery energy densities.
Whoever gets to do eyewear with AR without it looking dorky and without it being bulky will be the pioneer in making it widespread. These cannot be like how the Apple Watch is today, requiring an almost daily recharge when the device is no longer worn. The bigger challenge for Apple, as the devices become more feature rich, would be to continue keeping as much computation as possible on-device for enhancing privacy (and using differential privacy wherever apt), instead of offloading it to the cloud like its competitors look at things.
A semi intelligent seeming voice interface that handles most and then a secondary backup display only for purely visual things.
In the short term, the sticking point is the cell contract.
If there is a reasonable add-on price to your existing phone rate, this is going to catch on. The more reasonable the rate, the quicker it will catch on.
Longer-term, the standalone service contract (Watch-only, no phone) will become more significant. People don't have an intrinsic urge to carry a rectilinear slab in their pocket... they have an intrinsic urge to communicate with each other. As a watch form-factor becomes more convenient, they will happily switch, in droves.
The finger handwriting works reasonably well too. It's slow though, at least for me, so better for short messages.
If you don't want the watch to interact with your phone at all, then you would be fine. But you'd presumably be losing quite a bit of functionality by doing so.
The problem is that gave me something I wanted: the internet everywhere.
This gives me something I've been living without and don't want to pay that much for then privilege of: my smart watch working when I don't have my phone.
But 3G/LTE? It's easier to find an HDMI receiver that'll process HDCP. Nevermind something hand-solderable...
The integrated 3G & GPS in my ThinkPad is very convenient.
Calls, Messages, Email, and Siri with voice to command short replies.
Map directions, Apple Pay, and Car2Go and I'd be set.
(Or do something else to make the watchband more useful. Antennas maybe?)
The Apple Watch already can and does use WiFi and will connect to existing configured access points:
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2015/05/how-to-ensure-apple-watch...
Presumably if you tethered your personal phone to a second phone, then the apple watch could and would also connect directly to that second phone's WiFi hotspot without your personal phone present.
An Apple Watch with a small screen is a misfire and a watch that works standalone is somewhat missing the point. Watches were supposed to be remote control devices for our phones. Nothing else. This move feels like a cheap limited feature phone, not the future.
Edit: Maybe I am missing the point. Imagine a standalone watch that broadcasts wifi signal. Now imagine a thin ipod touch on the other hand piggybacking on the watch. That would be like reimagining the future.
