Obviously I have the benefit of hindsight, but... I don't think it's a matter of waiting for the right guys (e.g. Apple) to crack the smart watch and make it a

Obviously I have the benefit of hindsight, but... I don't think it's a matter of waiting for the right guys (e.g. Apple) to crack the smart watch and make it a hit. Not that Apple couldn't, but I think that's looking at reality wrong. Smart watches that exist now aren't hugely popular, not because the interface is bad, but because nobody knows what they should do. "You get notifications? That's it?" When Apple made the iPod, they didn't start with a form and end with a function. No one was asking, "When will brick-shaped things that fit in your pocket be big?" There was a function -- portable players of digital music files -- that needed to be done well. iPod was arguably the first MP3 player that solved that problem. That it is brick-shaped and fits in a pocket is a result of the required function, it wasn't the goal. Ditto the iPhone. You could argue that "mobile phone" as an end form was pre-determined, but it's semantics. The use cases, the functions, were what needed solving. The end form has very little in common with mobile phones before it. The talk around smart watches is backward. "We have this form -- a watch with a microprocessor and probably Bluetooth -- but what can it do?" - Maybe it's for exposing notifications on your wrist. - Maybe it's for giving a view of the phone in your pocket on your wrist. - Maybe it's for measuring biometric data. - Maybe it's for identifying yourself. Maybe. Are these functions in need of a form, or a form in need of some function? If the former, is a watch the best form anyway? (I have a Pebble. I even wear it most days. I like it. But if it broke, I wouldn't buy another.)