Apple Watch has been on the market for a year now, and The Wall Street Journal has a new report in which it compares the product’s estimated sales to the original iPhone’s in its first year. Apple has never released hard Apple Watch sales numbers as it does for iPhones, iPads, and Macs, but WSJ says twice as many Apple Watches have been sold during the first year as iPhones during its first year. Apple sold just over 5.8 million iPhones during its first four quarters on the market.
Obviously that’s not an apples to apples comparison, but it’s one way to paint Apple Watch positively as iPhone has taken off with quarter after quarter growth until now. Tomorrow Apple is scheduled to release its quarterly earnings report covering the January through March period where Tim Cook is likely to reflect on the first year of Apple Watch in some degree.
Looking forward, the WSJ’s report includes one nugget about what to expect about the Apple Watch 2 likely to launch later this year:
Apple is working on adding cell-network connectivity and a faster processor to its next-generation Watch, according to people familiar with the matter.
The report also details other issues with Apple Watch during its first year: battery life to some degree (it gets through a full day but not more), speed (native apps didn’t deliver promised speed boost), and overall functionality.
The idea of embedding cellular connectivity is that Apple Watch could enjoy new use cases not currently possible when relying on a tethered iPhone for data transfer. Optionally having a cellular connection just like the iPhone would allow Apple Watch to directly send and receive data when off Wi-Fi without using the iPhone as a passthrough, which necessarily delays any task.
Apple Watch wouldn’t be the first smartwatch on the market with built-in cellular either. Samsung and LG have both released smartwatches with embedded LTE, although enabling LTE mobility typically means another access charge on your carrier bill as well.
For me, cellular connectivity is less of an issue except on outdoor runs when the option to leave the iPhone behind and just rely on Apple Watch for music, fitness tracking, communication, and Apple Pay would be ideal. All of those are possible now with the exception of location tracking during workouts except for communication; you can listen to locally stored music over Bluetooth and even make purchases with Apple Pay, but an untethered Apple Watch can’t make phone calls or send and receive messages without a data connection.
The faster chip, presumably called the S2, is a bigger upgrade point for me though. What about you? Would cellular connectivity solve any problems with Apple Watch for you, or is it a non-factor? Let us know with our poll below, and share your thoughts in the comments. Would you be willing to pay extra for a cellular Apple Watch if it wasn’t standard? Would you pay a monthly fee for access if you had a cellular option?
As for our own reporting, 9to5Mac shared last June that Apple Watch 2 would likely focus on iPhone independence, thanks in part to an upgraded Wi-Fi chip, and prototypes 10 months ago included a FaceTime camera for video calls as well as new materials. Apple Watch launched a year back after being introduced six months earlier and recently saw a $50 price cut across Sport models. Apple Watch 2 is expected to debut later this fall.
[4:47 pm ET: Corrected iPhone sales numbers. My apologies, thanks John :)]
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
After all, they are the ones, Apple, to bring Nano-sim anyway
Something doesn’t add up here. 192.3 million iPhones sold in the first year??? And the Apple Watch is supposed to have sold double that lol Think you need to recheck those first year iPhone sales!
Confused as well
That seems like a huge number. Checked wikipedia (not known for 100% reliablity), it states: Units sold 6.1 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)
That is correct.
That’s not accurate. $192.3 M last year maybe
Where is option 3 – No, I don’t want Apple Watch to have cellular connectivity.
Why? A cellular connection will mean it will need a sim card tray and those take up so much space, especially inside Apple Watch.
Also another cellular subscription? Ok Apple Watch would only transfer data which wouldn’t use lots of data but still.
Cellular connectivity would only be great in the future when the sim card will be buried and people can just log into their carrier account to get their watch’s cellular connection working. Because we know this is coming, to the iPhone and iPad as well.
And then there’s the fact that cellular connectivity needs to be powered, another thing that will gobble up battery life. It’s ok you know, everyone’s Apple Watch is connected to a solar park ain’t it?
I see a great feature for Apple Watch but for me it’s a product which was rushed. Why? It lacks so many sensors which would make it awesome. The future in which doctors are given permission by their patients to constantly monitor their health through Apple Watch is a great one. It would save so many lives. I mean if someone has a heart attack for example and the doctor/hospital can see this happening, he can instantly send an ambulance.
But today’s Apple Watch.
No thank you.
I agree. Someday the AW will be a very capable device. Right now though, it’s not. Not enough sensors. Not enough phone independant capability. Not enough battery life. Just not enough ‘stuff’ for it to be worth my money. Maybe someday.
Couldn’t disagree more. Alerts and two communication with those alerts are amazing expsically considering the larger size of phones. Leaving my phone anywhere in my house or office and being able to interact from my wrist is amazing. The next is health, I would love more sensors but as of now I can go for a run have it tracked heart rate and distance while listening to music without my phone!. so much easier
Apple is already using an embedded SIM in the new 9.7″ iPad Pro. I’m sure they would do the same for the watch.
It definitely isn’t the most important feature of an Apple Watch 2, but if they can improve everything else that needs improvement and also add cellular connectivity that would be pretty cool.
They may but they still would need the sim card tray to make it compatible with most carriers in the world. It’s too soon for adding cellular connectivity without adding a sim card tray.
@applegetridofsimandjack
Why is it too soon? Someone needs to make the jump. No one was using Nano Sims before the iPhone 5 came out but they went with that anyway and the market followed. They’re going to have to go that way if they want to add a cellular connection…a sim card is way too large for a watch.
The watch might be a good device to kick this off. Likely it can be used tethered to an iPhone still so in regions where carriers don’t implement the required technology, the watch will function as it does today. I’m sure some carriers will want to come forward but which could create a snowball effect that might allow us to remove the sim card from phones in a few years.
I want some kind of GPS…and faster of course…The one thing that is downright embarrassing about the Apple Watch is just how slow it is.
You do know that GPS eats the whole iPhone battery in about two hours. so how big in size should that watch be?
I’m resisting the urge to flame you right now…So I’ll be polite :)
Other smart watches out there *have* GPS…The battery life is around the same or slightly better than AW.
If that cellular is used primarily for GPS tracking (for apps and location if its lost) then that’d be awesome… I don’t see much else of a need otherwise
Oh boy, again with the proofreading / research… “Apple sold 192.3 million iPhones during its first four quarters on the market”? More like 5.41 million. It’s not like those numbers aren’t available, people. No need to make stuff up.
The polls on sites like this need to be more carefully considered. The answer offered is “Yes, I need Apple Watch to gain cellular connectivity.” There are only 2 choices given so they should just be “yes” or “no”. I want to answer “Yes, it’s a feature that I’d be excited about” but definitely not “Yes, I need Apple Watch to gain cellular connectivity.” I certainly don’t need it.
I think Apple Watch is a cool product I wear it every day and and feel I miss one hand, killer features to me are complications with calendar, my Netatmo temperature outside our window and EUR/USD exchange rate – for work reasons.
Still it is a first year product and there is plenty for Apple to fix. My priorities would be:
1 Speed – really bad – by the time I open Hue to switch on and off bedroom lights I could walk to the switch and back and make myself a sandwich.
2 Fix WiFi – it doesn’t work in my house as we have wifi on each floor, I re-set everything it works two hours on one floor but not on the other and then stops working completely. Doesn’t work in the office at all. I gave up on potentially super useful feature allowing to leave the phone behind. Working LTE would be superb and I would be happy to get an extra data plan, data prices are coming down all the time so should be fine. Please apple show the connection details in settings – the current implementation I am guessing based on an idea that “it just works” and hence as a user I don’t need to know the settings makes me mad when “it just doesn’t work”.
3 Battery life – works through the day but I like to work out in the evening and then it dies mid work out – I need to recharge it when I get home to survive.
4 Facetime camera – yes but not high on my list
5 DON’T MAKE IT SLIMMER UNTIL YOU FIX 1-3 – PLEASE!!!!
how long would you hold up your arm to actually use a camera? also why not pull out the phone for that?
I’m not interested in data connectivity, but native GPS would be nice, if it didn’t cripple battery life.
Yes, but if it will be embedded like on iPadPro.
I’d be talking about cellular connectivity if the Apple Watch had some battery life to spare. Since it doesn’t (for my tastes, anyway), I’d rather it didn’t.
Cellular activity = battery drain vampire.
It just wouldn’t apply to me. The watch is always on me when the phone is with me, with the exception of inside buildings…where there is wifi…and no need for cellular.
We need Apple sim and the function of using the same “sim” in multiple devices that dynamically switch between which device is being used as the conduit. You wouldn’t pay for multiple lines because technically it’d be only one line and only one device would be connected at a time.
If you have the phone on you it acts as the cell receiver and uses BLE to to provide the watch with data. Leave the phone at home (or never own one) and the watch detects this and apple sim switches to the phone’s line to keep you connected.
That’s the future. All devices always sharing internet but only the one that makes the most sense at the time does the work.
The watch has to gain cellular. It has to happen. It can one day be the first “phone” for children and a simple “phone” for the elderly to help them monitor health and stay connected to family (and emergency centers). Then it’d have broader appeal than an iphone accessory for rich people.
But I would like it to mirror your iPhone’s data, so there is no extra data plan or cost (usage will just count against my phone contract). Also, for them to implement it in a way which means they don’t have to add a nano-sim card tray, which uses space that will need to be filled with battery.
The poll was worded badly. I’d like for Watch to have cellular capability, but I don’t need it.
Also, a really winning technical thingy would be for Watch to have *hand-off* cellular capability with the iPhone. In other words, when the iPhone is present, Watch talks to it, and to its cellular services, via Bluetooth, but you also have the option to disable iPhone cellular temporarily and transfer its cellular service to Watch. That way, a single cellular account & phone number could serve both devices, in most situations.
The fact that they left this out in the first generation was astounding to me. That made the item a hard no in my case. Now I’ve gone out and purchased a fitness tracker that has standalone GPS and the lack of call/text notification when I am away from my phone is a non issue for me. Sorry Apple, you missed me as a customer with the Watch because of your desire to hold out features in order to tempt upgraders on Generation 2
If Apple could get all cellular providers to come up with something like AT&T’s NumberSync then they would need to put embedded SIMs in the Apple Watch.
For the time being eSIMs are needed for the Apple Watch to be a stand alone device. With the new retirement that all Watch apps have to be native it give the cellular rumors more credence. Cellular to me is needed so the Apple Watch can stop being an iPhone accessory and everyone can purchase it and use it without an iPhone.
I think we will see a preview at WWDC and release 3-4 months later. I think they will do these so they are more native apps available for this cellular model.
I wonder if th we Apple Watches will use Intels new wireless modems.
This is all what’s wrong with the Watch. It fails to do its more basic functions, and still Apple thinks in adding cellular connectivity and a camera. They are Samsunging the shit out of this device.
The old Apple was simple, if the feature didn’t perform good enough, it wasn’t shipped. It took us 3 years to get cut copy and paste, but it was the best implementation out there. 7 to get fingerprint recognition, and now it’s a must. Under the old Apple the Watch wouldn’t have been released. It performs poorly, and it has a totally bad designed software. But instead of focusing on the true issues, they just go for headline grabbing features.
The Watch will be considered a success/failure when the second one comes out. It’s impossible to do it in base of the units they sold now. You need to compare it with something. If Watch 2 sells the same or more than the Watch 1, the product has a shot. If they sell less it proves that whoever bought it think it’s not worth it. In my particular case its clearly not worth it. I paid for it the same amount than a cheap MB Air and it was a terrible mistake. Until they finally do something about their poor UI and confusing UX, they won’t be getting any more money from me. So: it bought one and I think is a failure. That’s why you cant predict failure/success with just the amount sold.
Fix………………….the random….lags…on the Watch…
All I want is speed. They shouldn’t broaden new use cases before nailing current ones. I use my watch for a ton of things but constant spinning when launching makes me wonder why I do it at all.
Hell no. Cell radio = battery drain = need for slower processor to keep battery life up. Watch v2 needs one thing more than anything – a faster processor!
Zac, you don’t need your iPhone for Apple Pay on the watch.
Bring embedded sim to macbook/air/pro Apple !
I’m all for a cellular connection if it makes the Watch faster. Without going through all of the scenarios and just answering the theoretical question”LTE or no?” then I say LTE. Of course, the #1 thing I’m really after is speed. The lags are horrible. I’ve stopped wearing the Watch every day because it’s so much faster to dig out my phone and do the same thing. At least I know all of my apps will load and sync correctly on my phone.
For me to buy an Apple Watch in future, it absolutely has to have cellular connectivity. If/when it has that then I’ll spend much more time reviewing all the other features to determine whether it’s worth the money. At the moment I feel like I’m laden down with devices when I go for a run – Garmin watch for GPS, Fitbit which stays on all day, iPhone for my music…
If I could run with just my watch on then that would be perfect, as long as the functionality of the device is up to scratch in all other aspects. Wouldn’t mind it being a bit thinner, too, but that’s being greedy.