7 ms·

The problem is that there is very little that you can do with a <=1" screen apart from check the time. I think the reason everybody is working so hard on smart

by jmkni 12y ago

The problem is that there is very little that you can do with a <=1" screen apart from check the time. I think the reason everybody is working so hard on smart watches is in case somebody else comes up with an actual use case for them, they want to be ready to implement it.

KFW504 12y ago
so true - but don't you think that it's only a matter of time? Some of the futuristic applications that we only imagine today are probably not that far away... but I think it is misguided to limit wearable focus to watches. Interesting article on the topic: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21646225-smartwatches-and-other-wearable-devices-become-mainstream-products-will-take-more http://www.economist.com/news/business/21646225-smartwatches...
- duaneb 12y ago
  > but don't you think that it's only a matter of time? If there were a killer app for a watch, it would be out already. Most people just don't want a crippled computer strapped to their wrist except as a status symbol.
  - MCRed 12y ago
    All of these criticisms could have been made about the iPhone (and were-- regarding the keyboard being virtual) or the iPad (I personally couldn't figure out what the compelling app was for the iPad).... but once the platform is out there, you find out what it is. It turned out the iPhone's compelling app was the app itself. Previously people paid $4/month to carriers for crappy junk. For the iPad it was actually browsing, though a lot of other near computer type apps work great on it. Here's the thing-- whatever the compelling reason is, Apple kept the product in gestation long enough to figure out what it was before releasing it. All three of these products were in gestation for a long time. People lampooned the iPad before it was released with "why would anyone want a device just to brows the web while on the toilet???". I don't know what the compelling app is for the watch--- I suspect it's actually being notified by your phone without having to pull your phone out. But if there isn't a compelling app, then this would be a huge change from Apple. They've been pretty consistent in knowing the killer app, or category, before releasing the product-- even though it's often not obvious to us when we buy the first version.
    - minthd 12y ago
      With regards to the tablet, the killer app is the big screen. Once you know people use their phone on the sofa and bed(and Apple surely did know that) plus the fact that people prefer large screens(They also did know that), the tablet usecase is simple. The only question why did nobody release something before them. Could have been luck. Could have been that they worked on a tablet long before.Could have been Apple's amazing supply chain Could have been some other business reason. But i think it was just a matter of time till someone releasing a tablet. And btw ,nokia had a device similar to the tablet a few years before the ipad(and even before the iphone), but they didn't made a product of it.
      - mercer 12y ago
        I think the iPad did well partly for the same reasons that the iPhone did well despite not being the first 'smartphone': an easy, slick user interface and decent/great hardware. The fact that the iPad had tons of apps (which the iPhone didn't) probably helped. Another factor might be timing. The iPhone, and by extension other smartphones, laid the groundwork for making it socially more acceptable to use these kinds of devices. I vividly recall being a bit embarrassed to pull out my geeky 'PDA' in the dumbphone days, and I felt much less of that when I got the iPad (while none of the people around me had one).
    - aetherson 12y ago
      With regards to smartphones: this just isn't true. The compelling app on the iPhone was not third-party apps (they didn't even exist at launch!), it was browser + messaging + camera + maps. That was clear form day one, and while you're right that some people argued for a physical keyboard and they have been proven wrong by history, the fundamental value prop of the iPhone was absolutely not a blank-slate platform that people kind of figured out what to do with. The value prop was "we know that you want to get emails on the go, look up simple things on the web, have a more convenient UI to your text messages, have a camera on hand, and be able to navigate." Apps came later, as a differentiating point against other smartphones, not as the value prop of the smartphone as a platform. Tablets: I think that the doubters have been proven right by history. Sales are way, way down on tablets -- largely because they just aren't that useful.
roc 12y ago
I'm surprised at everyone's insistence that smartwatches ape the physical sizes and shapes of traditional watches. It strikes me not unlike past insistence that smartphones needed to have physical keyboards and removable batteries. Every declared and hypothetical use for a smartwatch would be better-served with a larger screen. Something this side of a pip-boy, to be sure, but at least twice as wide as the display on the Apple Watch. (Increased internal volume for battery would more than make up for increased screen size.) If everyone was still wearing watches, trying to slide in on familiarity might make some sense. But watches have been on the decline since even basic cell phones began to spread. I understand you have to make something people are willing to wear. But making it familiar, at a cost to its ability to do everything people might want it for, is a short-sighted mistake.
- ohitsdom 12y ago
  Great point. Current smart watches have zero appeal to me. But, if they started to move towards a curved, wider forearm band (similar to a QB arm band playbook), a lot of possibilities open up. It'd probably be a tough sell initially from a fashion standpoint though. I did see some mockups that took this approach when the Apple rumors first started flying.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    At that point you could just strap your smartphone to your arm.
threeseed 12y ago
Really very little ? The biggest benefit for me to get an Apple Watch is so that I don't have to check my phone during meetings, lunches etc when I get a phone call or email. In fact I can see myself using my phone a lot less. Throw in other benefits e.g. tracking fitness, playing music wirelessly whilst running, opening my car door, navigating whilst in the car (and having it display maps on my head unit using AirPlay), being able to make payments etc and it's definitely useful. It just plays in well with this notifications based world we live in. It means you can very quickly check a notification and be done with it. With your phone it's a lot more effort and often you can miss the notification anywhere.
- uptownJimmy 12y ago
  "tracking fitness, playing music wirelessly whilst running" Not to get too superior, but these two are MAJOR reasons for wearing a smart watch, and they are completely lost on a HUGE chunk of the crowd here....

by jmkni 12y ago

KFW504 12y ago

so true - but don't you think that it's only a matter of time? Some of the futuristic applications that we only imagine today are probably not that far away... but I think it is misguided to limit wearable focus to watches. Interesting article on the topic: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21646225-smartwatches-and-other-wearable-devices-become-mainstream-products-will-take-more http://www.economist.com/news/business/21646225-smartwatches...

duaneb 12y ago
> but don't you think that it's only a matter of time? If there were a killer app for a watch, it would be out already. Most people just don't want a crippled computer strapped to their wrist except as a status symbol.
- MCRed 12y ago
  All of these criticisms could have been made about the iPhone (and were-- regarding the keyboard being virtual) or the iPad (I personally couldn't figure out what the compelling app was for the iPad).... but once the platform is out there, you find out what it is. It turned out the iPhone's compelling app was the app itself. Previously people paid $4/month to carriers for crappy junk. For the iPad it was actually browsing, though a lot of other near computer type apps work great on it. Here's the thing-- whatever the compelling reason is, Apple kept the product in gestation long enough to figure out what it was before releasing it. All three of these products were in gestation for a long time. People lampooned the iPad before it was released with "why would anyone want a device just to brows the web while on the toilet???". I don't know what the compelling app is for the watch--- I suspect it's actually being notified by your phone without having to pull your phone out. But if there isn't a compelling app, then this would be a huge change from Apple. They've been pretty consistent in knowing the killer app, or category, before releasing the product-- even though it's often not obvious to us when we buy the first version.
  - minthd 12y ago
    With regards to the tablet, the killer app is the big screen. Once you know people use their phone on the sofa and bed(and Apple surely did know that) plus the fact that people prefer large screens(They also did know that), the tablet usecase is simple. The only question why did nobody release something before them. Could have been luck. Could have been that they worked on a tablet long before.Could have been Apple's amazing supply chain Could have been some other business reason. But i think it was just a matter of time till someone releasing a tablet. And btw ,nokia had a device similar to the tablet a few years before the ipad(and even before the iphone), but they didn't made a product of it.
    - mercer 12y ago
      I think the iPad did well partly for the same reasons that the iPhone did well despite not being the first 'smartphone': an easy, slick user interface and decent/great hardware. The fact that the iPad had tons of apps (which the iPhone didn't) probably helped. Another factor might be timing. The iPhone, and by extension other smartphones, laid the groundwork for making it socially more acceptable to use these kinds of devices. I vividly recall being a bit embarrassed to pull out my geeky 'PDA' in the dumbphone days, and I felt much less of that when I got the iPad (while none of the people around me had one).
  - aetherson 12y ago
    With regards to smartphones: this just isn't true. The compelling app on the iPhone was not third-party apps (they didn't even exist at launch!), it was browser + messaging + camera + maps. That was clear form day one, and while you're right that some people argued for a physical keyboard and they have been proven wrong by history, the fundamental value prop of the iPhone was absolutely not a blank-slate platform that people kind of figured out what to do with. The value prop was "we know that you want to get emails on the go, look up simple things on the web, have a more convenient UI to your text messages, have a camera on hand, and be able to navigate." Apps came later, as a differentiating point against other smartphones, not as the value prop of the smartphone as a platform. Tablets: I think that the doubters have been proven right by history. Sales are way, way down on tablets -- largely because they just aren't that useful.

roc 12y ago

I'm surprised at everyone's insistence that smartwatches ape the physical sizes and shapes of traditional watches. It strikes me not unlike past insistence that smartphones needed to have physical keyboards and removable batteries. Every declared and hypothetical use for a smartwatch would be better-served with a larger screen. Something this side of a pip-boy, to be sure, but at least twice as wide as the display on the Apple Watch. (Increased internal volume for battery would more than make up for increased screen size.) If everyone was still wearing watches, trying to slide in on familiarity might make some sense. But watches have been on the decline since even basic cell phones began to spread. I understand you have to make something people are willing to wear. But making it familiar, at a cost to its ability to do everything people might want it for, is a short-sighted mistake.

ohitsdom 12y ago
Great point. Current smart watches have zero appeal to me. But, if they started to move towards a curved, wider forearm band (similar to a QB arm band playbook), a lot of possibilities open up. It'd probably be a tough sell initially from a fashion standpoint though. I did see some mockups that took this approach when the Apple rumors first started flying.
- philwelch 12y ago
  At that point you could just strap your smartphone to your arm.

threeseed 12y ago

Really very little ? The biggest benefit for me to get an Apple Watch is so that I don't have to check my phone during meetings, lunches etc when I get a phone call or email. In fact I can see myself using my phone a lot less. Throw in other benefits e.g. tracking fitness, playing music wirelessly whilst running, opening my car door, navigating whilst in the car (and having it display maps on my head unit using AirPlay), being able to make payments etc and it's definitely useful. It just plays in well with this notifications based world we live in. It means you can very quickly check a notification and be done with it. With your phone it's a lot more effort and often you can miss the notification anywhere.

uptownJimmy 12y ago
"tracking fitness, playing music wirelessly whilst running" Not to get too superior, but these two are MAJOR reasons for wearing a smart watch, and they are completely lost on a HUGE chunk of the crowd here....