5 ms·

Since pebble started shipping and already got nice coverage and feedback from the community it sounds reasonable that apple might work on it's "i" equivalent.

roc 14y ago
Considering this patent was filed in mid-2011 and is almost certainly claiming an earlier invention date, I think you may have your order of events backwards.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  The company behind Pebble has been working on smartwatches for a lot longer than Pebble - well before 2011. There was even a launched product - inPulse - before Pebble.
  - roc 14y ago
    And? The claim was the reaction to the Pebble is what motivated Apple. I merely posited the calendar doesn't support that. If you want to generalize it to "Apple is doing something similar to what other people had previously done" that's a completely different argument.
Samuel_Michon 14y ago
Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011. Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012. From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.
- Mindphreaker 14y ago
  Thank's for pointing this out. Although I'm not an apple fan, this sounds pretty nice. :)
- buro9 14y ago
  > the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild. Fairly common, automatic mechanical watches already use kinetic, but were we to say "But those aren't electronic" then you could always look at something like the Seiko Premier ( http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_snp005p1 http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_s... ) And for ambient light charging, you have Citizen and their Eco-Drive range ( http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-us/watches/collections/citizen-eco-drive/ http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-us/watches/collections/citize... ) and Casio's G-shock ( http://www.gshock.com/technology/solar/ http://www.gshock.com/technology/solar/ ) I enjoy the fact that my current watch is ambient light powered, syncs with atomic clocks each night via radio... and therefore never needs a battery or charging, and is so damn accurate that I can glance at my watch when some event happens on my NTP sync'd server and the entry in the log file is precisely when the time on my watch said it would be. Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've existed for years by numerous players in the watch market.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    Thanks for the explanation, but the watches in your examples use very little juice. Apple's concept device has a large touchscreen and a persistent network connection with other iDevices. That uses a lot more power, that's why I was surprised to read that they're trying to run it off ambient light and kinetic energy -- I would've thought it wouldn't be worth it.
    - ishansharma 14y ago
      Network connection can be handled by Bluetooth low power mode. I don't know exact specs but it may work.
    - buro9 14y ago
      The patent mentions using multiple power acquisition methods to simply extend the life of the battery. The patent also mentions many power savings features, basically putting the device into life-saving mode most of the time and only waking to perform a task or notify you of something. If that's the case, then low power use when off is the priority for them, and if they are able to use drips of power from multiple sources to partially power that stand-by, then the battery only really gets used when you put the screen on... meaning that the device's standby time can be legitimately advertised as being some very long period of time. And for an idea of standby power for a bluetooth device, let's go back to Casio ( http://world.g-shock.com/us/en/ble/function/ http://world.g-shock.com/us/en/ble/function/ )... > Since Bluetooth® v4.0 uses low-power near field communication technology, your function-packed G-SHOCK is able deliver to approximately two years of operation on a single coin type battery. This makes the watch's advanced functions practical for everyday use. Approximate battery life when communication function are used for 12 hours a day (tentative value). 2 years! The iWatch (or whatever it's called) really is only going to drain the battery when that screen is on and in use.

roc 14y ago

Considering this patent was filed in mid-2011 and is almost certainly claiming an earlier invention date, I think you may have your order of events backwards.

potatolicious 14y ago
The company behind Pebble has been working on smartwatches for a lot longer than Pebble - well before 2011. There was even a launched product - inPulse - before Pebble.
- roc 14y ago
  And? The claim was the reaction to the Pebble is what motivated Apple. I merely posited the calendar doesn't support that. If you want to generalize it to "Apple is doing something similar to what other people had previously done" that's a completely different argument.

Samuel_Michon 14y ago

Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011. Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012. From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.

Mindphreaker 14y ago
Thank's for pointing this out. Although I'm not an apple fan, this sounds pretty nice. :)
buro9 14y ago
> the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild. Fairly common, automatic mechanical watches already use kinetic, but were we to say "But those aren't electronic" then you could always look at something like the Seiko Premier ( http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_snp005p1 http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_s... ) And for ambient light charging, you have Citizen and their Eco-Drive range ( http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-us/watches/collections/citizen-eco-drive/ http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-us/watches/collections/citize... ) and Casio's G-shock ( http://www.gshock.com/technology/solar/ http://www.gshock.com/technology/solar/ ) I enjoy the fact that my current watch is ambient light powered, syncs with atomic clocks each night via radio... and therefore never needs a battery or charging, and is so damn accurate that I can glance at my watch when some event happens on my NTP sync'd server and the entry in the log file is precisely when the time on my watch said it would be. Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've existed for years by numerous players in the watch market.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Thanks for the explanation, but the watches in your examples use very little juice. Apple's concept device has a large touchscreen and a persistent network connection with other iDevices. That uses a lot more power, that's why I was surprised to read that they're trying to run it off ambient light and kinetic energy -- I would've thought it wouldn't be worth it.
  - ishansharma 14y ago
    Network connection can be handled by Bluetooth low power mode. I don't know exact specs but it may work.
  - buro9 14y ago
    The patent mentions using multiple power acquisition methods to simply extend the life of the battery. The patent also mentions many power savings features, basically putting the device into life-saving mode most of the time and only waking to perform a task or notify you of something. If that's the case, then low power use when off is the priority for them, and if they are able to use drips of power from multiple sources to partially power that stand-by, then the battery only really gets used when you put the screen on... meaning that the device's standby time can be legitimately advertised as being some very long period of time. And for an idea of standby power for a bluetooth device, let's go back to Casio ( http://world.g-shock.com/us/en/ble/function/ http://world.g-shock.com/us/en/ble/function/ )... > Since Bluetooth® v4.0 uses low-power near field communication technology, your function-packed G-SHOCK is able deliver to approximately two years of operation on a single coin type battery. This makes the watch's advanced functions practical for everyday use. Approximate battery life when communication function are used for 12 hours a day (tentative value). 2 years! The iWatch (or whatever it's called) really is only going to drain the battery when that screen is on and in use.