3 ms·

I would put very big money on smart watches not failing. What we're seeing now is something we see often in newish technologies - we take an existing technolog

by nkozyra 12y ago

I would put very big money on smart watches not failing. What we're seeing now is something we see often in newish technologies - we take an existing technology and attempt to shoehorn it into another. A smartwatch should not be an analog to a phone. It also probably shouldn't be a watch. But as happens so often, we say "put phone plus watch = product?" There's very little here that's exploiting the advantages of a wearable on the arm. When wearables start exploiting their physical advantages, they'll stop being cool tech toys and start being useful.

hyp0 12y ago
Health monitoring stuff is in that category. It could become a thing in itself, especially if other sensors are added. eg blood sugar, not just for diabetics, but dieting, sport, concentration. general health.
- MatthiasP 12y ago
  Exactly. Out of all the things a smartwatch could do, only health tracking is something that your smartphone can't do. The successful smartwatch will not be a little window to your smartphone, but a high quality health tracker that integrates perfectly with your phone and ALSO shows you the time and notifications.
- nkozyra 12y ago
  Absolutely. But first gen smartwatches have barely-functioning sleep and step monitors. That's not worth $250. Another huge problem with the self-quantification trend is there isn't much emphasis on doing stuff with that data. There's a fervor about knowing about yourself, but a large gap in utilizing that data. Smart watches could very well fill that role. A nice first step would be to stop calling them smart watches. Wearables isn't much better.
  - hyp0 12y ago
    yes, it's very plausible as a thing in itself. They can succeed without replacing smartphones. Computers keep shrinking, from mainframes to desktops, laptops, smartphones. I'm curious about the next smaller form-factor, and argue it's not watches, but glasses. That was the claim I meant to make.
VLM 12y ago
"we take an existing technology and attempt to shoehorn it into another." Not financially, which is a HUGE problem for smart watches. I'm considered an unamerican weirdo crazy, at least in part, because I dropped like four hundred bucks on a smart phone and pay only $22/month just for service, instead of paying $100 on a two year contract like a real American, who can just barely afford a $100/month callphone bill but could never financially survive a single one time $400 expense. These watch guys think they're going to sell $300 one time expense watches to a people who as a group have already proven they would rather pay loan shark interest rates rather than pony up a couple hundred bucks to buy their phone. This is a recipe for disaster. The only way smart watches can possibly survive is by being bundled into a contract with AT&T or whoever, say an extra $50 a month for two years on their existing contract which would be a modest 150% APR loanshark-grade loan. You "know" the consumers are not going to be able to pony up $300 cash because they're already self selected as loanshark victims.

by nkozyra 12y ago

hyp0 12y ago

Health monitoring stuff is in that category. It could become a thing in itself, especially if other sensors are added. eg blood sugar, not just for diabetics, but dieting, sport, concentration. general health.

MatthiasP 12y ago
Exactly. Out of all the things a smartwatch could do, only health tracking is something that your smartphone can't do. The successful smartwatch will not be a little window to your smartphone, but a high quality health tracker that integrates perfectly with your phone and ALSO shows you the time and notifications.
nkozyra 12y ago
Absolutely. But first gen smartwatches have barely-functioning sleep and step monitors. That's not worth $250. Another huge problem with the self-quantification trend is there isn't much emphasis on doing stuff with that data. There's a fervor about knowing about yourself, but a large gap in utilizing that data. Smart watches could very well fill that role. A nice first step would be to stop calling them smart watches. Wearables isn't much better.
- hyp0 12y ago
  yes, it's very plausible as a thing in itself. They can succeed without replacing smartphones. Computers keep shrinking, from mainframes to desktops, laptops, smartphones. I'm curious about the next smaller form-factor, and argue it's not watches, but glasses. That was the claim I meant to make.

VLM 12y ago

"we take an existing technology and attempt to shoehorn it into another." Not financially, which is a HUGE problem for smart watches. I'm considered an unamerican weirdo crazy, at least in part, because I dropped like four hundred bucks on a smart phone and pay only $22/month just for service, instead of paying $100 on a two year contract like a real American, who can just barely afford a $100/month callphone bill but could never financially survive a single one time $400 expense. These watch guys think they're going to sell $300 one time expense watches to a people who as a group have already proven they would rather pay loan shark interest rates rather than pony up a couple hundred bucks to buy their phone. This is a recipe for disaster. The only way smart watches can possibly survive is by being bundled into a contract with AT&T or whoever, say an extra $50 a month for two years on their existing contract which would be a modest 150% APR loanshark-grade loan. You "know" the consumers are not going to be able to pony up $300 cash because they're already self selected as loanshark victims.