>> "But the most obvious alternative is to massively increase the amount of voice control the watch offers, and Apple simply doesn’t have the technical chops to

>> "But the most obvious alternative is to massively increase the amount of voice control the watch offers, and Apple simply doesn’t have the technical chops to do so. While Google and Amazon have been creating voice assistants that people seem to actually use and wax lyrical about, Apple … hasn’t." This passage from the article jumped out at me. Is he saying that voice recognition is the missing killer feature in an Apple Watch, whereas Android watches hold the promise of adding such a feature because Google (and, irrelevantly, Amazon) are better at it? Without getting into a technical debate about which tech giants are ahead in voice recognition and its applications, I am interested in the notion of conversing with a smart watch. The obvious application is to provide the time of day to a sight impaired person, or (more trivially) to someone driving a car or operating heavy machinery who can't glance down. Probably it could be programmed to guide the sight impaired down the street, buzz if you veer off the sidewalk, etc. Even there, it's merely a peripheral to the smartphone which can do all of that and more. My Moto 360 was purchased on a whim because it was on sale, and indeed I wear it infrequently on a whim, usually when going to a tech event or a conference that requires strict adherence to a schedule, and then only for its obvious geek value. It's fun, my daughter loves changing the watch faces, and occasionally it's even useful for discretely screening calls and texts. I just keep thinking that some brilliant kid is going to stumble across a killer application for these watches, and then we'll be off to the races. Still scratching my head on this one, for now.