6 ms·

There's something weird about wearables and also recent advances in home surveillance. I see people posting here that the customers don't want surveillance, the

There's something weird about wearables and also recent advances in home surveillance. I see people posting here that the customers don't want surveillance, they want metrics. But, like... why? What's the appeal? People will spend hundreds of dollars on something like an Apple watch, and all it really does is make texts and calls slightly more convenient (I don't buy it) and give you little metrics to look at. People are paying hundreds of dollars to see their heart rate or mobility data? Does it really mean this much to them? Imo the wearables are more of a status thing than anything, but whenever I see someone wearing one it just pisses me off. Specifically the more expensive ones, but also the less expensive ones. I'm sure there are valid (niche) uses like if the wearer has some health condition, but for the general market? Not only this, but once you normalize them who's to say things like this[0] won't happen? Who's to say insurance companies don't start nudging them harder until Congress does something about it? Something that I'm not entirely opposed to are wearables that don't connect to the internet and let you see local sensor data. This makes sense from a metrics standpoint. But why exactly is the phoning home to Apple/Google even necessary? What value does it add (for the customer)? [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-fitness-trackers-in-the-workplace-bosses-can-monitor-your-every-step--and-possibly-more/2019/02/15/75ee0848-2a45-11e9-b011-d8500644dc98_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-fitness...

Gigachad 4y ago
One thing the watches really do well is they make it much easier to notice a call or message in a loud environment. Before getting a smartwatch, you'd easily miss a call if your phone is in your pocket/bag and you are in a crowded/noisy space. You basically always notice if its a vibrating watch unless you have your hands on something vibrating. But yes, largely the Apple Watch doesn't enable new activities. It just makes a whole lot of common ones easier and faster with less pulling you phone out.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jefftk 4y ago
  > It just makes a whole lot of common ones easier and faster with less pulling you phone out. Which also reduces distraction for many people, since often when you get your phone out you end up getting into various time consumption apps that aren't actually how you intend to be spending your time.
giobox 4y ago
For sports or fitness, simple metrics like HR band based training or distance measuring simply work in many cases and lead to measurable improvements in health or sporting ability over the course of a few months. Even before Apple watch came along, loads of cycling/running enthusiasts where taking advantage of metrics to train better via tools like GPS watches and ANT+ power meters. It works, if you apply yourself, and those devices couldn't even do calls or texts - thats frankly a bonus feature. I used dedicated Garmin devices for years, Apple have packaged it up and made it so pretty much anyone can take advantage. While no one in the absolute needs an Apple watch to lose weight or get fitter, for some people it works, so have at it, frankly. Friendly competition on strava.com has been great motivator for me at times in my life over the last decade - devices like apple watch are gateway to that world.
hedgehog 4y ago
I recently switched from a mechanical watch to Apple Watch. Here's why: First, I wanted metrics on sleep and exercise to manage against (how am I allocating my time) and better understand how to optimize performance (e.g. even one beer has noticeable impact on rest). Second, I want an easier way to get a subset of notifications without picking up my phone. My hands are full with work or family most of the day so this helps me be responsive. Third, I want the first two without granting wholesale access to all the data. Works pretty well, the big annoying downside is it's one more device to charge.
- neogodless 4y ago
  Agree with all this except my Garmin Venu only needs charged after 8 days so it's not very annoying!
  - hedgehog 4y ago
    Battery life on the Apple Watch is pretty bad, for me the integration with my phone is worth it but it's a big compromise.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> whenever I see someone wearing one it just pisses me off That seems kind of extreme. You don't like it, just don't buy it? Personally, I like my Apple Watch, it's pretty handy. I couldn't care less about any sort of 'status' it projects (and it doesn't -- everyone around me has one, it's not noteworthy to have one strapped to your wrist).
- pannSun 4y ago
  > You don't like it, just don't buy it? The remainder of his post explains why such an individual solution isn't enough: it doesn't stop society as a whole slipping further into total surveillance, until eventually it swallows you as well. Either compelled by law, or non-negotiable contract, or by a large fraction of your friends owning surveillance devices, catching you in their crossfire.
  - ls15 4y ago
    I agree. I don't have a Facebook account, yet people are telling me that surveillance is fine, because we give away our data on Facebook anyway.
  - cr4nberry 4y ago
    > The remainder of his post explains why such an individual solution isn't enough: it doesn't stop society as a whole slipping further into total surveillance, until eventually it swallows you as well. Either compelled by law, or non-negotiable contract, or by a large fraction of your friends owning surveillance devices, catching you in their crossfire. I can't prove this, but I'm convinced that there's a bunch of people in this culture who want surveillance and invasion of privacy. There's too many instances of people buying into BS like internet connected wearables or Alexa. All of the reasons people give for buying these products is marginal. What problem does Alexa solve that your phone or computer can't? And why is it necessary to give a device the privilege to have a microphone on 24/7 to solve it?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > What problem does Alexa solve that your phone or computer can't? And why is it necessary to give a device the privilege to have a microphone on 24/7 to solve it? Note that your phone also defaults to having its microphone on 24/7. The problem that this solves, for people that use it, is that it removes a lot of friction from computer interaction. "[Hey Siri / Ok Google / Alexa] set a timer for twenty minutes" takes much less time and effort, and even works with messy hands when you're cooking.
_jal 4y ago
> Imo the wearables are more of a status thing than anything All jewelry signals status. Wearables just add some functions to the ancillary time telling. One thing I think it interesting about the status marker of wearables is that it is a bit tied to its origin at the moment. Maybe that will wear off in time, but as of now, they have a whiff of "white collar drone" to them. The really wealthy people I know wear (very expensive) analog watches, or nothing on their wrist.
- dinvlad 4y ago
  Interestingly, Apple Watch was initially designed to compete with Rolex, but then Apple found out that folks who can afford Rolex don’t want to change it for anything else. Hence, the mass-market pivoted Watch was born.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    There is also the fact that a Rolex lasts for ages so the high price is made up by the fact you aren’t burning the cash, you are just converting it in to an asset you can sell later. The Apple Watch will be worthless ewaste in 10 years so they can never charge luxury watch prices.
    - dinvlad 4y ago
      Good point!
heavyset_go 4y ago
The whole 'quantified self' thing was both about addressing niche wants for metrics and creating a mainstream market for those metrics, and the devices that collect them, as well. To answer your question, the appeal was originally niche and expensive advertising campaigns convinced consumers that they needed it, too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Not only this, but once you normalize them who's to say things like this[0] won't happen? Who's to say insurance companies don't start nudging them harder until Congress does something about it? Why should someone not be able to monetize their discipline to exercise and eat healthy?
- mellavora 4y ago
  simple answer: Because the path to direct monetization leads to laws forcing other people to give away their privacy. more complex answer: why does everything need to be monetized, or monetizable? How does this shape society, and is this the society we want? See today's discussion on luxury surveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33256724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33256724
- cr4nberry 4y ago
  Because then it normalizes that degree of privacy invasion on a societal level. It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it (because insurance companies profit from it and will nudge it) You might see short term benefit for yourself, but others could end up getting screwed by insurance companies because their lifestyle doesn't qualify as "healthy". Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profile potential customers and either deny them coverage or jack up their rates
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    >It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it It makes it cheaper for those who exercise and eat healthy. We use individuals' history of repaying debts to price their loans, we use individuals' history of driving and location of driving to price their auto insurance premiums. We use their history in school and work to price their work product. Where is the line for pricing someone's risk based on individual factors vs pricing based on the collective risk? >Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profile potential customers and either deny them coverage or jack up their rates Per Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies in the US cannot deny coverage and premiums can only be priced using the 5 criteria listed here: https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
frou_dh 4y ago
I cook a lot and use a watch app called MultiTimer every day for virtually everything I cook. Got detailed overlapping timers configured for all my recipes. That's pure utility, no status signalling involved. You seem to have made up your mind that it's a fixed-function non-programmable computer and got angry about that, but I don't see how that's my problem.
- cr4nberry 4y ago
  > I cook a lot and use a watch app called MultiTimer every day for virtually everything I cook. Got detailed overlapping timers configured for all my recipes. That's pure utility, no status signalling involved. I mean, you could just do the exact same thing with your computer, or your phone? That's what I do when I cook Where's the pure utility? Not having to walk over to your computer or phone? > You seem to have made up your mind that it's a fixed-function non-programmable computer and got angry about that, but I don't see how that's my problem. It isn't your problem. I never said it was. My problem is that the "utility" from wearables is complete and utter BS, and that what little value they add comes nowhere close to justifying the cost or invasion of privacy But I guess if the niche uses are appealing enough to you, then by all means indulge ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - frou_dh 4y ago
    What is niche? Any application cr4nberry hasn't heard of?

Gigachad 4y ago

One thing the watches really do well is they make it much easier to notice a call or message in a loud environment. Before getting a smartwatch, you'd easily miss a call if your phone is in your pocket/bag and you are in a crowded/noisy space. You basically always notice if its a vibrating watch unless you have your hands on something vibrating. But yes, largely the Apple Watch doesn't enable new activities. It just makes a whole lot of common ones easier and faster with less pulling you phone out.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jefftk 4y ago
> It just makes a whole lot of common ones easier and faster with less pulling you phone out. Which also reduces distraction for many people, since often when you get your phone out you end up getting into various time consumption apps that aren't actually how you intend to be spending your time.

giobox 4y ago

For sports or fitness, simple metrics like HR band based training or distance measuring simply work in many cases and lead to measurable improvements in health or sporting ability over the course of a few months. Even before Apple watch came along, loads of cycling/running enthusiasts where taking advantage of metrics to train better via tools like GPS watches and ANT+ power meters. It works, if you apply yourself, and those devices couldn't even do calls or texts - thats frankly a bonus feature. I used dedicated Garmin devices for years, Apple have packaged it up and made it so pretty much anyone can take advantage. While no one in the absolute needs an Apple watch to lose weight or get fitter, for some people it works, so have at it, frankly. Friendly competition on strava.com has been great motivator for me at times in my life over the last decade - devices like apple watch are gateway to that world.

hedgehog 4y ago

I recently switched from a mechanical watch to Apple Watch. Here's why: First, I wanted metrics on sleep and exercise to manage against (how am I allocating my time) and better understand how to optimize performance (e.g. even one beer has noticeable impact on rest). Second, I want an easier way to get a subset of notifications without picking up my phone. My hands are full with work or family most of the day so this helps me be responsive. Third, I want the first two without granting wholesale access to all the data. Works pretty well, the big annoying downside is it's one more device to charge.

neogodless 4y ago
Agree with all this except my Garmin Venu only needs charged after 8 days so it's not very annoying!
- hedgehog 4y ago
  Battery life on the Apple Watch is pretty bad, for me the integration with my phone is worth it but it's a big compromise.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> whenever I see someone wearing one it just pisses me off That seems kind of extreme. You don't like it, just don't buy it? Personally, I like my Apple Watch, it's pretty handy. I couldn't care less about any sort of 'status' it projects (and it doesn't -- everyone around me has one, it's not noteworthy to have one strapped to your wrist).

pannSun 4y ago
> You don't like it, just don't buy it? The remainder of his post explains why such an individual solution isn't enough: it doesn't stop society as a whole slipping further into total surveillance, until eventually it swallows you as well. Either compelled by law, or non-negotiable contract, or by a large fraction of your friends owning surveillance devices, catching you in their crossfire.
- ls15 4y ago
  I agree. I don't have a Facebook account, yet people are telling me that surveillance is fine, because we give away our data on Facebook anyway.
- cr4nberry 4y ago
  > The remainder of his post explains why such an individual solution isn't enough: it doesn't stop society as a whole slipping further into total surveillance, until eventually it swallows you as well. Either compelled by law, or non-negotiable contract, or by a large fraction of your friends owning surveillance devices, catching you in their crossfire. I can't prove this, but I'm convinced that there's a bunch of people in this culture who want surveillance and invasion of privacy. There's too many instances of people buying into BS like internet connected wearables or Alexa. All of the reasons people give for buying these products is marginal. What problem does Alexa solve that your phone or computer can't? And why is it necessary to give a device the privilege to have a microphone on 24/7 to solve it?
  - jefftk 4y ago
    > What problem does Alexa solve that your phone or computer can't? And why is it necessary to give a device the privilege to have a microphone on 24/7 to solve it? Note that your phone also defaults to having its microphone on 24/7. The problem that this solves, for people that use it, is that it removes a lot of friction from computer interaction. "[Hey Siri / Ok Google / Alexa] set a timer for twenty minutes" takes much less time and effort, and even works with messy hands when you're cooking.

_jal 4y ago

> Imo the wearables are more of a status thing than anything All jewelry signals status. Wearables just add some functions to the ancillary time telling. One thing I think it interesting about the status marker of wearables is that it is a bit tied to its origin at the moment. Maybe that will wear off in time, but as of now, they have a whiff of "white collar drone" to them. The really wealthy people I know wear (very expensive) analog watches, or nothing on their wrist.

dinvlad 4y ago
Interestingly, Apple Watch was initially designed to compete with Rolex, but then Apple found out that folks who can afford Rolex don’t want to change it for anything else. Hence, the mass-market pivoted Watch was born.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  There is also the fact that a Rolex lasts for ages so the high price is made up by the fact you aren’t burning the cash, you are just converting it in to an asset you can sell later. The Apple Watch will be worthless ewaste in 10 years so they can never charge luxury watch prices.
  - dinvlad 4y ago
    Good point!

heavyset_go 4y ago

The whole 'quantified self' thing was both about addressing niche wants for metrics and creating a mainstream market for those metrics, and the devices that collect them, as well. To answer your question, the appeal was originally niche and expensive advertising campaigns convinced consumers that they needed it, too.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> Not only this, but once you normalize them who's to say things like this[0] won't happen? Who's to say insurance companies don't start nudging them harder until Congress does something about it? Why should someone not be able to monetize their discipline to exercise and eat healthy?

mellavora 4y ago
simple answer: Because the path to direct monetization leads to laws forcing other people to give away their privacy. more complex answer: why does everything need to be monetized, or monetizable? How does this shape society, and is this the society we want? See today's discussion on luxury surveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33256724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33256724
cr4nberry 4y ago
Because then it normalizes that degree of privacy invasion on a societal level. It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it (because insurance companies profit from it and will nudge it) You might see short term benefit for yourself, but others could end up getting screwed by insurance companies because their lifestyle doesn't qualify as "healthy". Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profile potential customers and either deny them coverage or jack up their rates
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  >It makes it more expensive for people to say 'no' to it It makes it cheaper for those who exercise and eat healthy. We use individuals' history of repaying debts to price their loans, we use individuals' history of driving and location of driving to price their auto insurance premiums. We use their history in school and work to price their work product. Where is the line for pricing someone's risk based on individual factors vs pricing based on the collective risk? >Not only this, but lifestyle data could be used to profile potential customers and either deny them coverage or jack up their rates Per Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies in the US cannot deny coverage and premiums can only be priced using the 5 criteria listed here: https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/ https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/

frou_dh 4y ago

I cook a lot and use a watch app called MultiTimer every day for virtually everything I cook. Got detailed overlapping timers configured for all my recipes. That's pure utility, no status signalling involved. You seem to have made up your mind that it's a fixed-function non-programmable computer and got angry about that, but I don't see how that's my problem.

cr4nberry 4y ago
> I cook a lot and use a watch app called MultiTimer every day for virtually everything I cook. Got detailed overlapping timers configured for all my recipes. That's pure utility, no status signalling involved. I mean, you could just do the exact same thing with your computer, or your phone? That's what I do when I cook Where's the pure utility? Not having to walk over to your computer or phone? > You seem to have made up your mind that it's a fixed-function non-programmable computer and got angry about that, but I don't see how that's my problem. It isn't your problem. I never said it was. My problem is that the "utility" from wearables is complete and utter BS, and that what little value they add comes nowhere close to justifying the cost or invasion of privacy But I guess if the niche uses are appealing enough to you, then by all means indulge ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- frou_dh 4y ago
  What is niche? Any application cr4nberry hasn't heard of?