4 ms·

Microsoft introduced the tablet PC in 2001, nine years before the first iPad. As with Apple's watch now, the experience wasn't worth the cost. Clues about what

by sekou 10y ago

Microsoft introduced the tablet PC in 2001, nine years before the first iPad. As with Apple's watch now, the experience wasn't worth the cost. Clues about what the future will look like are already all around us and I think this is one of them.

azinman2 10y ago
If you have a phone on you, a screen and direct manipulation will always win out. There's too high a perceived psychological barrier compared to being able to 'do it yourself' with your hands. The echo works because you don't have any device to manipulate, and often you're using it while shouting at it or are busy with your hands in the kitchen (and even then the majority of its current usage is timers and music -- the easier stuff that works decently well with voice). If the watch itself has data (cellular or otherwise) and you don't have your phone, that's when there's some advantage to being able to do this. However it's unclear when that's better than having a phone -- if its about going on a run then dedicated fitness trackers might be all you need compared to a watch that has to solve all problems with a terrible and tiny UI. There are many reasons smartwatches (not just apple's) have been doing poorly on the market -- it's a demand from industry rather than consumers, and the advantages have not been clearly communicated at all (the most personal device ever? compare that to the iPhone's you can email/web anywhere anytime -- clear value).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ajford 10y ago
  Well, don't forget that the article talks about the Pebble Core, which is the screen-less processing module on the new Pebble Kickstarter. There is no direct manipulation (other than the two buttons on the device) or feedback. It is intended for development or things like run tracking. If you are running, it may be considerably easier (and safer) to use a voice interface like Alexa than it would be to use a screen. Which is probably why they focused on Alexa for the Core and not the watches.

by sekou 10y ago

azinman2 10y ago

If you have a phone on you, a screen and direct manipulation will always win out. There's too high a perceived psychological barrier compared to being able to 'do it yourself' with your hands. The echo works because you don't have any device to manipulate, and often you're using it while shouting at it or are busy with your hands in the kitchen (and even then the majority of its current usage is timers and music -- the easier stuff that works decently well with voice). If the watch itself has data (cellular or otherwise) and you don't have your phone, that's when there's some advantage to being able to do this. However it's unclear when that's better than having a phone -- if its about going on a run then dedicated fitness trackers might be all you need compared to a watch that has to solve all problems with a terrible and tiny UI. There are many reasons smartwatches (not just apple's) have been doing poorly on the market -- it's a demand from industry rather than consumers, and the advantages have not been clearly communicated at all (the most personal device ever? compare that to the iPhone's you can email/web anywhere anytime -- clear value).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ajford 10y ago
Well, don't forget that the article talks about the Pebble Core, which is the screen-less processing module on the new Pebble Kickstarter. There is no direct manipulation (other than the two buttons on the device) or feedback. It is intended for development or things like run tracking. If you are running, it may be considerably easier (and safer) to use a voice interface like Alexa than it would be to use a screen. Which is probably why they focused on Alexa for the Core and not the watches.