A true all-day assistant: The compelling argument for a camera in the Apple Watch

 In Technology
With the introduction of cellular connectivity in Apple Watch Series 3, it’s now more convenient than ever to leave your phone at home for quick trips and during workouts without consequence – for the most part. When you want to snap that quick photo or have a FaceTime video call, the Watch still won’t cut it. This is the one of the largest remaining friction points in a truly independent Apple Watch experience.

At first it might sound unnecessary, or even a little invasive to have a camera always on your wrist. However, Apple has been putting in place technologies over the last several years that may soon make a camera on the Apple Watch not just a reality, but an essential part of your day-to-day life. Let’s take a look at why now may finally be the right time for all of these pieces to come together.

Tweetbot For iOS


Apple has been exploring the idea of a camera on your wrist for years. As early as June 2016, the company applied for a patent covering an image sensor in the Apple Watch. Since day 1, watchOS has shipped with an iPhone camera remote app, allowing control of your iPhone’s shutter within Bluetooth range.

Third parties have made attempts as well, such as CMRA, an Apple Watch band with a camera built in. So far, none of these implementations have made for an entirely seamless or elegant solution.

The original Apple Watch shipped with the underpowered S1 chip, a processor just capable of running core watch apps while maintaining all-day battery life. Apple Watch Series 3 ships with substantially more powerful S3 and W2 chips, and future models will only get faster. These chips are finally powerful enough to support the processing required for photos and video.

That said, the Apple Watch is a very small device, with little room for additional components. The most obvious place for a lens is on the frame of the Watch. While this approach could work, it has several drawbacks. First, not everyone wears their watch the same way. Apple even provides settings to let you change wrist orientation and crown positioning. The top of the one person’s Watch might be the bottom of someone else’s. Second, a visible lens on the Watch casing would substantially detract from its appearance. The Apple Watch is a fashion accessory, and Apple prides itself on the beautiful finishes and band options available for it. A camera lens would give the appearance of a gadget, not an elegant time piece.

With these factors in mind, the ideal place to position a camera is directly under the Watch’s display. Apple has been working on this, too. Patent applications dating back to 2007 reference cameras behind displays. Designer Mike Rundle has further detailed Apple’s ongoing work in this field. This technology is likely a major roadblock slowing the rollout of a camera in the Apple Watch, and may prove difficult to accomplish at scale.

Apple has worked around this issue in part on the iPhone X with “the notch”, but the Watch’s display is much smaller and can not afford to be reduced in size in any way. The complexity of the TrueDepth camera system and challenge of miniaturization could mean that we still have to wait several years before the technology makes it our wrists, but the pieces now all exist in some form or another to complete the picture.


All of this technology would be little more than a gimmick if presented without compelling reasons to use it. So why would you actually want a camera on your wrist?


It’s hard to talk about a wrist-mounted camera without drawing comparisons to Dick Tracy, as video calling is probably the most obvious use for an Apple Watch camera. Brief FaceTime video calls not only make for an impressive technology demo, but thanks to an LTE connection and the hands-free nature of the Apple Watch, it may prove even more convenient a device than an iPhone to make video calls on.

Face ID

The Face ID authentication system was originally introduced to replace Touch ID on the iPhone X after Apple removed the home button, but the feature almost feels designed for the Apple Watch first. When your iPhone is unlocked, your Watch is by extension also unlocked, but what happens if your phone is out of range? Today, watchOS defaults to a simple passcode screen. Apple has built wrist detection into the Watch as a secondary layer of security, using the heart rate sensor to detect if you’re wearing the Watch or not. Neither of these systems are ideal or incredibly secure. Even Apple Pay transactions on watchOS rely on the same security principles.

Face ID would bring the Apple Watch’s security up to par with the iPhone X. Just raising your wrist and looking at your watch would authenticate it, no additional steps required. By extension, Macs would also enjoy the security benefits of Face ID, since an Apple Watch can be used to unlock a Mac or make purchases in Safari with Apple Pay.

Face ID detects when you are looking at the display of your device, and this feature could be put to use in other parts of watchOS as well. No longer would you need to tilt your wrist or tap the Watch display to activate it, just glancing down at your watch face could turn it on. The same technology could be employed to make sure the display does not shut off while you’re still looking at it.

Recent Posts
Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox
Join over 2.3 million subscribers. Get daily breaking news directly to your inbox as they happen.
Your Information will never be shared with any third party.
Get Latest News in Facebook
Never miss another breaking news. Click on the "LIKE" button below now!