In our report last week, we reported that internal models of the Apple Watch included 8 GB of storage. We have now confirmed with the company that the shipping units do indeed ship with an 8 GB storage capacity. However, there are some important limitations.
As a user, you are only allowed to use a subsection of that total space for certain types of data. As confirmed with Apple, users are only allowed to store up to 2 GB of music on the Watch and up to 75 MB of photos for the Photos app. Note that all three collections — Sport, Watch and Edition — feature the same 8 GB memory capacity.
The locally-stored music and photos can then be played or viewed independent of an iPhone. For instance, when going for a run, you can leave your iPhone at home and listen to 2 GB of music on your journey.
2 GB of music equates to approximately 200 decent quality music tracks, so the Watch is not going to be a straight up iPod replacement when untethered. Obviously, when paired with the phone, you can listen to your entire music library streaming over Bluetooth. What songs are synced is managed by the Apple Watch companion app on the iPhone, that ships with iOS 8.2.
The 75 MB limit on Photos appears restrictive, but the company has made clear that it only wants you to store your favorite snaps on the Watch itself (managed automatically by iCloud Photo Library). Also note that the Watch will automatically resize images when imported so that they take up much less room than the original stills, optimized for display on the screen of the Apple Watch. A very rough estimate indicates that you will be able to hold over 100 photos in the 75 MB of allocated local storage.
Obviously, this leaves around 6 GB of other space seemingly unaccounted for. It is likely that a few gigabytes of that remaining capacity will be taken up by the system’s OS and internal apps leaving a decent chunk of space for miscellaneous data like settings and application caches, which help speed up the overall experience of using the device.
In the future, when a native SDK arrives, as Apple has already announced it is coming, this space will also be used to store the application binaries and resources. For the time being, resources for apps on Apple Watch are almost entirely stored on the paired iPhone and transmitted temporarily to the Watch when the app is in use.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
That sounds pretty good – A lot more than I had expected it to hold.
I can’t imagine the need for 16GB, but I suspect people who compare smartwatches on a like-for-like basis will still use this as a comparison.
I believe the second or at least later versions of the Apple Watch will be more independent, i.e function completely without the presence of an iPhone, thus needing more storage.
Hoping to see biometric sensors measuring blood sugar, body temp, blood oxygen and so forth in the upcoming version(s). That would be truly revolutionizing the whole smart-watch-fitness-category. But I guess its more up to FDA, rather than Apple.
I agree. There’s really no NEED for anything more. I think its appropriate for them to protect the user experience in such a small and powerful device. B/c its not an iPhone or iPad, which means it doesn’t need all the junk that we tend to store on them. The fact that they are giving 8GB is way more than I expected. I’m just happy that I can workout with my playlist.
Waiting on the thinner lighter faster waterproof FaceTime camera independant version with 32 gb
I’m waiting on these too. They will have a built in levitation/flying system to carry the wearer on their commute, be made of solid gold and will also be handed out at no cost to anyone with an Apple ID.
So what happens to those who buy the $10,000 watch when Apple releases the Apple Watch 2 16 GB version in the Fall? I can understand the cost of a Rolex and its resale value (A 10-year old Rolex still works), but where is that value in a watch that will be outdated by a more advanced, thinner, better, faster, more storage space watch just around the corner… Just wait until they announce a circle version! LOL
Why do you care? They will just buy the new version. The old one goes into the drawer – Those rich madheads dont care…
“So what happens to those who buy the $10,000 watch when Apple releases the Apple Watch 2 16 GB version in the Fall?”
They probably continue to be exceedingly wealthier than the rest of us, and will probably just buy the newest Apple Watch model without a second thought, along with a $5K magnum of champagne while wearing their $10K Hermes scarf at a Michelin three star restaurant. If you are thinking about resale value and are concerned with the planned obsolescence of an expensive object, that object is not for you.
Apple can’t say anything now, but I have a feeling that since we now know that the battery is replaceable, and we know the guts come on a modular SOC, that there will be SOC upgrades available, particularly when the AppleWatch becomes independent of an iPhone.
Let’s be honest rich people don’t care about features and the technology. They just like spending money on expensive stuff just to show of their weath. They’ll get every model that comes out as long as it’s $10,000+. It could only tell time and most would still buy it.
is it water resistant?
About as much as washing your hands or running in the rain. But not shower/swimmer type resistant.
What bpmajesty said then also the leather bands aren’t water resistant at all.
I just think it is really ugly and the Bezel on the thing is huge, The Moto 360 looks way better, all they need to do for the second one is slim it down and get rid of that flat tyre.
I also don’t get why you’d have music on your watch, no one uses wireless headphones because they suck. What i’d prefer is to be able to stream video to the watch, all the time I miss my favourite sports when I’m out and I’m not gonna hold my phone constantly.
Prepare for a delusion when you see the two next to each other in real life.
Really? You want to watch sports on a 1.5 to 1.7 inch screen?…music makes much more sense for the health features being able to go exercise listening to music without an iPhone.
Also there is a huge difference between seeing pictures and seeing in person, the bezels are much smaller when you actually see one or really can visualize the size. Like the whole watch is about 2 inches diagonally total and about one and a quarter iphone 5s’ thick. Which is just a little bit taller than a fitbit or jawbone. Pretty similar to any other smartwatch or fitness tracking watch available.
2GB for music makes a lot of sense using it for exercising without need to carry a phone around or even use an armband which can be a hassle sometimes. 75mb for photos is absolutely plenty. I don’t know many people who want to view photos on a 1.5 to 1.7 inch screen. I’ll have max 1gb of music a couple photos and the rest not taken by the software will be all apps. I’m most excited for Apple Pay since I only have an iPhone 5S, Health tracking, and “Hey Siri” all the time!
Well, I know what the next model will feature as an improvement. However, I don’t see the need or even the desire for a lot of memory on your wrist.
This report only talks about “music”, but it would be interesting to know if the watch could also store podcasts for independent playback. Any word on that, on 9to5Mac?
Anyone know that it will be possible to go for a run with the watch without the iphone and when we came at home sync the data of the run with the iphone? It will be really great so we don’t need to grab the iphone in the arm in every run or gym.
Both my iPad and iPhone 6plus are 64GB, can I link that if I buy one?