4 ms·

Amusingly enough he then praises the Palm later. I think if he replaced that opening bit with "early smartphones, like windows 6.5 smartphones" it would be dead

Amusingly enough he then praises the Palm later. I think if he replaced that opening bit with "early smartphones, like windows 6.5 smartphones" it would be dead-on. Well, except the syncing thing. That's still bs.

mikestew 11y ago
So I went back and finished the article. The problem with his opening paragraph is that it is his premise for the rest of the article. And the truth is not "smartwatches are too slow/battery-hungry/useless", it's that they try to do too much. The author does use the Pebble as an example, and that's what he should have gone with. The Pebble is the Palm of smartwatches: simple, good battery life, pretty snappy, and doesn't try to overreach (much). I'm happy with mine, and the reason this Apple "fanboy" doesn't have an Apple Watch is because: battery-hungry, slow, and tries to do too much for too much money. From where I sit, most companies are trying to put a "computer on my wrist" when I'm really quite content with a "display on my wrist" (Pebble, mostly) until we can sort out the power management and optimizations needed to make "computer on my wrist" a workable product.
- laumars 11y ago
  Precisely this. You summed up why I love my Pebble too. It's a watch first and foremost, with a few handy gadgets. Rather than a smartphone on my wrist fashioned like a watch.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    The original Pebble seemed interesting. This new one with the whole timeline concept seems over-designed.
- jkestner 11y ago
  Poses the general question, which approach is "better"? The focused tool is more efficient and easier to understand, but things tend toward convergence of previous separate functions. Is it the way of the world that we start with focused tools to introduce a concept, and turn it into a feature of another product to gain mass acceptance? What then pushes the gravity of convergence toward one device or another?

mikestew 11y ago

So I went back and finished the article. The problem with his opening paragraph is that it is his premise for the rest of the article. And the truth is not "smartwatches are too slow/battery-hungry/useless", it's that they try to do too much. The author does use the Pebble as an example, and that's what he should have gone with. The Pebble is the Palm of smartwatches: simple, good battery life, pretty snappy, and doesn't try to overreach (much). I'm happy with mine, and the reason this Apple "fanboy" doesn't have an Apple Watch is because: battery-hungry, slow, and tries to do too much for too much money. From where I sit, most companies are trying to put a "computer on my wrist" when I'm really quite content with a "display on my wrist" (Pebble, mostly) until we can sort out the power management and optimizations needed to make "computer on my wrist" a workable product.

laumars 11y ago
Precisely this. You summed up why I love my Pebble too. It's a watch first and foremost, with a few handy gadgets. Rather than a smartphone on my wrist fashioned like a watch.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  The original Pebble seemed interesting. This new one with the whole timeline concept seems over-designed.
jkestner 11y ago
Poses the general question, which approach is "better"? The focused tool is more efficient and easier to understand, but things tend toward convergence of previous separate functions. Is it the way of the world that we start with focused tools to introduce a concept, and turn it into a feature of another product to gain mass acceptance? What then pushes the gravity of convergence toward one device or another?