3 ms·

The Microsoft tablets were non-starters; they were clunky x86 machines in an era when it was difficult to do x86 in a truly portable way. They were practically

The Microsoft tablets were non-starters; they were clunky x86 machines in an era when it was difficult to do x86 in a truly portable way. They were practically vaporware, and the few units they did sell disappeared into ignominy. The iPad was something else entirely, and was much closer to the vision people had of tablet computers based on what they saw on Star Trek and similar media. > And Apple's entrance changed consumer expectations. Exactly, that's the point I've been trying to make. Except in this case: With the smartwatch, everything Apple is being lauded for bringing to the platform has already been here for years, with the exception of Apple Pay. That feature alone is what sets the Apple Watch apart from Android Wear, the new Pebble watches, and the new Sony watch; everything else is available whether you have an iPhone (Pebble, Microsoft Band), Android (pretty much any smartwatch), or Windows Phone (Microsoft Band). And so far Apple Pay itself has been a non-starter.

mercer 12y ago
I do agree that in this case perhaps Apple can't offer enough, but I'm not sure about it. Many people didn't see the point of the iPhone when it came out. And I'd argue that especially the tech 'community' did not have a clue which exact features of the phone made it such a huge success: touch-based input with a UI built around the concept and, eventually, apps. It's quite possible that the emphasis on new varieties of 'buzzing' for notifications, perhaps coupled with the fact that they're on your wrist, turns out to be a key feature that others overlooked. Or perhaps the 'new' forms of communication - drawing, heartbeats, customized smileys - will appeal to people more than we think it does. Or maybe just the UI as a whole will be enough to set this watch apart from the ones that exist. I'm not as sure about the watch as I was about the iPhone when it was unveiled (and later the apps), but so far Apple has had an impressive amount of successes where the main reasons for this success was only apparent to many of us in hindsight.

mercer 12y ago

I do agree that in this case perhaps Apple can't offer enough, but I'm not sure about it. Many people didn't see the point of the iPhone when it came out. And I'd argue that especially the tech 'community' did not have a clue which exact features of the phone made it such a huge success: touch-based input with a UI built around the concept and, eventually, apps. It's quite possible that the emphasis on new varieties of 'buzzing' for notifications, perhaps coupled with the fact that they're on your wrist, turns out to be a key feature that others overlooked. Or perhaps the 'new' forms of communication - drawing, heartbeats, customized smileys - will appeal to people more than we think it does. Or maybe just the UI as a whole will be enough to set this watch apart from the ones that exist. I'm not as sure about the watch as I was about the iPhone when it was unveiled (and later the apps), but so far Apple has had an impressive amount of successes where the main reasons for this success was only apparent to many of us in hindsight.