If not an iWatch... how about an iRing?

If not an iWatch... how about an iRing?

iWatch is all most markets and media outlets are talking about these days because wearables are new and every short-attention-span junky in the world wants Apple to do something new. But what if, instead of an iWatch, Apple went with an iRing? Make all the Sauron jokes you want, but hall-of-famer Craig Hockenberry has put a lot of thought into the possibility and written it all up on his blog, Furbo.org:

Let this sink in for a second: your wearable device is transmitting a signal with a unique identifier that can be picked up by an iOS 7 device. And the proximity detection is sensitive within a few inches. Presumably, this signal could be also be detected on your Mac as well, since they have supported Bluetooth 4.0 since mid-2011.

By wearing this ring on your finger, your devices can know how close you are to them.

Personally I still think a wrist device is the more likely alternative, though an iWatch would be to a traditional watch as the iPhone was to a traditional phone. However, the future is open to many possibilities and I'd love to see Apple solve the problems Hockenberry innumerates.

Check out his article and then let me know — iWatch or iRing, which one holds more appeal to you?

Have something to say about this story? Leave a comment! Need help with something else? Ask in our forums!

Rene Ritchie

EiC of iMore, EP of Mobile Nations, Apple analyst, co-host of Debug, Iterate, Vector, Review, and MacBreak Weekly podcasts. Cook, grappler, photon wrangler. Follow him on Twitter and Google+.

More Posts



← Previously

How to fix iPhone and iPad battery life problems!

Next up →

iTunes vs. Ultraviolet: Are Apple-loving Veronica Mars fans entitled to their service of choice, or just entitled?

Reader comments

If not an iWatch... how about an iRing?


Only if you want to get the attention of The Eye (and sneak around Cupertino to see what Apple is up to).

Just from a engineering standpoint, a watch-like wrist-top device would be easier to develop than a ring. Bigger so it could hold a bigger battery. And of course a ring-sized device might not have a display of any kind. And if it doesn't have a display, why not make it into an earbud? At least it might have some kind of Siri interface that way.

he makes a lot of wrong assumptions (a ring that can do blood pressure and pulse, ugh..). Otherwise, this is one of those guys who props up expectations beyond reality so everyone is disappointed when Apple does reveal a great product.

What I like about the ring idea is that rings and other jewelry have no utility, they're only about fashion and personal meaning. Apple has hired executives from fashion companies like YSL and Burberry for a reason. Something that is worth buying for the sake of its beauty and your own personal meaning, but is also a great "wearable" utility could truly be groundbreaking.

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor
where the Shadows lie.

Sent from the iMore App

Craig's entire piece begins with an easily-dispensed assumption, namely that watch makers have needed centuries to perfect their art and Apple can't match that. But a beautiful watch always has a round face, with a metal bezel around it and a stem or two. What will be on the face of an iWatch, and what's inside, will be all-electronic with no moving hands or gears. Lexus did that years ago on their instrument panel and it's beautiful. Poof - the rest of Craig's proposal rests on a foundation of sand.