Why lack of lightning port?

[sracer]

...but you CAN listen to music without your iPhone and WITHOUT wires (BT headphones).

Also if using only features available on the Nano like time and music you may be able to get several days of use on the aWatch (since we don't know yet).

You're changing your "point". First it was....

"My point is they and you are comparing a physical object to a picture. Until you have one in your hand under your own vision you can't make a direct and meaningful comparison."

But when I pointed out WHY they preferred the Nano....

your point is now defending the aWatch.

They are aware that it supports bluetooth headphones... those who said they preferred the Nano as a watch wanted to use cabled earbuds/headphones. Their choice.

I'm not going to be the middle-man between people I know and an aWatch apologist. I was pointing out that although Apple did not intend the Nano to be a watch, there are some people who actually prefer it over the aWatch.

 

[Julien]

Hey! I'm currently wearing a silver 6th gen Nano with an aluminum Lunatik Lynk band. I'm shocked at how many people have told me that they like that combo better than the aWatch.

Your point assumes things that were never said. You didn't ask WHY they liked the Nano watch over the aWatch.

They liked the ability to have functionality without requiring an iPhone. They understand that the Nano does less than the aWatch, but they like the standalone nature.

They like the ability to connect earbuds and headphones directly to it.

They like that it can run for 4-5 days before requiring it to be charged.

Given those reasons, a "meaningful comparison" is quite possible.

You're changing your "point". First it was.....

Now who was changing their point?

 

[MrGimper]

With no lightning port, I hope we never have to DFU restore that puppy.

 

[sracer]

Now who was changing their point?

Not changing the point at all... I said that there were people who said that they preferred the iPod Nano as a watch and then provided specifics they gave.

You first attempted to dismiss their opinion by claiming it is not reasonable to make ANY comparisons without seeing the aWatch in person. Then when I pointed out that their reasons didn't require examining it in person you responded critiquing their reasons.

Why must every difference of opinion degenerate into "defending Apple" or "attacking Apple"?

 

[JohnApples]

A bit off topic, but serious question...

Does anyone think that this new "wireless charger" will eventually replace the Lightning cable for our mobile Apple devices? Perhaps in the iPhone 7 (or beyond) they can incorporate the same type of charging capabilities into it? Maybe to make it even thinner than the Lightning port can support? I don't really know if that's even plausible, but I've been wondering about this since they introduced it in the keynote.

 

[Julien]

A bit off topic, but serious question...

Does anyone think that this new "wireless charger" will eventually replace the Lightning cable for our mobile Apple devices?

Inductive charging is hardly new. Tesla demonstrated and even proposed inductive power supplies in the 1890's.

I doubt we will see it on the iPhone (it takes up space) and it's even more doubtful it would replace the Lightning connector. The Lightning connector does so much more than just allow charging. It's needed for a secure, diverse or reliable (DFU mode) connecting.

 

[HereBeMonsters]

A bit off topic, but serious question...

Does anyone think that this new "wireless charger" will eventually replace the Lightning cable for our mobile Apple devices? Perhaps in the iPhone 7 (or beyond) they can incorporate the same type of charging capabilities into it? Maybe to make it even thinner than the Lightning port can support? I don't really know if that's even plausible, but I've been wondering about this since they introduced it in the keynote.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/14/roundup-wireless-charging-options-for-apples-iphone

 

[Cloudsurfer]

It's not just logic it is fact. If the power is supplied by radio waves instead of wires then it is wireless. There is no wires making a connection into the aWatch or Macbook. Please explain what YOU think wireless charging is?

Oh lord.

The average level of technical 'expertise' here at MR is embarrassing.

 

[virginblue4]

Oh lord.

The average level of technical 'expertise' here at MR is embarrassing.

I'm sorry but you're the one in the wrong.

"Inductive charging (also known as "wireless charging") uses an electromagnetic field to transfer energy between two objects. This is usually done with a charging station. Energy is sent through an inductive coupling to an electrical device, which can then use that energy to charge batteries or run the device".

 

[Julien]

Oh lord.

The average level of technical 'expertise' here at MR is embarrassing.

Do you doubt the aWatch has inductive charging? Do you have anything constructive or informative to add or is the extent of your technical 'expertise' just to say "Oh lord...embarrassing"?

Apple Press release

...Apple Watch comes with a unique charging system that combines Apple’s MagSafe® technology with inductive charging...

 

[Cloudsurfer]

I'm sorry but you're the one in the wrong.

"Inductive charging (also known as "wireless charging") uses an electromagnetic field to transfer energy between two objects. This is usually done with a charging station. Energy is sent through an inductive coupling to an electrical device, which can then use that energy to charge batteries or run the device".

I am very well aware what of inductive charging is. It just make a me chuckle to read that it involves radio waves, and that the MagSafe is some sort of wireless charger.

Inductive charging is achieved by magnetism, not radio waves.

The MagSafe only uses magnets to fasten itself to the casing, not to induce a charge. There is a physical connection between the internal circuit of the Mac and the external power supply.

 

[Julien]

I am very well aware what of inductive charging is. It just make a me chuckle to read that it involves radio waves, and that the MagSafe is some sort of wireless charger.

Inductive charging is achieved by magnetism, not radio waves.

The MagSafe only uses magnets to fasten itself to the casing, not to induce a charge. There is a physical connection between the internal circuit of the Mac and the external power supply.

First I own a MacPro and not a MacBook and have never owned a MagSafe. Someone else said it was inductive so I assumed it was. I understand the aWatch will use a magnet as a fastener. We will probably get 3ed party mat type chargers you can just lay your aWatch on at night to charge.

I was simply trying to point out that it is wireless charging system and not wired as several people kept insisting it is going to be. While resonant inductive coupling is not radio waves per se it is a resonating electromagnetic field.

So while I was not technically correct, the point I was making is that the aWatch will have wireless inductive charging. Also here is an MIT paper on radio charging that is very similar but does use RF (radio) waves.

 

[RITmusic2k]

Wireless, not cordless. End of story.

 

[APlotdevice]

With no lightning port, I hope we never have to DFU restore that puppy.

The Pebble can be restored over Bluetooth, so I assume that the Apple watch will have similar functionality.

----------

Wireless, not cordless. End of story.

"Contactless" would be a more accurate term.