The story on the Chinese website says that Apple will not be designing the watch, but will be leaving that to Intel. Yes, you read that right, Intel. So according to the sources, Jony Ive will forego his normally obsessive control over every aspect of the design of Apple products and simply hand control to Intel. I don’t think so.
Even if there was something lost in translation and Intel are simply involved in some way, it still doesn’t make any sense. Intel produces x86 chips which are very power hungry, which would not be good for a watch which would need very long battery life.
Indeed because it is likely the low power Bluetooth 4.0 standard would be used, most of the serious processing could be done on the paired iPhone or iPad, meaning any Intel input would be pretty pointless.
The iPod nano range has a bit of a schizophrenic nature. Apple has changed its form factor on seven different occasions since first introducing it in 2005.
In 2010, the sixth generation iPod nano was revealed with a square form factor and no physical buttons. It featured 18 different clock-faces, and with the addition of a strap accessory, the nano could be worn as a watch.
However earlier this year Apple decided to ditch the square design and go back to a rectangular look for the nano.
Surely if Apple had been serious about producing an iWatch it would have modified the sixth generation nano’s design, added Bluetooth 4.0 and re-branded it as the iWatch.
Ditching the watch-like design indicates that Apple won’t be going down the iWatch route any time soon.
Even if Apple did go ahead with the iWatch, who would use it? With a 1.5in OLED screen, as these rumours suggest the watch would have, it would be hard even for Apple to make anything which would be fashionable and attractive to wear.
Consider the breadth and range of watches people wear at the moment, it would be hard to conceive that everyone would be willing to change to a single design from Apple.
There would of course be a core customer base of Apple fans who would want to wear one, but this would not be enough for Apple to make any serious money from it…
Read More: David Gilbert, ibtimes.co.uk