Ok, you're stuck in an airport and bored. You flip out your 4.7" or 5.5" phone. Can you spend an hour or more playing with it, consuming content, even doing work? Yes you can.
Now, you're stuck in an airpot and bored. You keep your phone in your pocket and stare at your watch with a 38mm screen. Can you imagine spending an hour or two interacting with and consuming content on this thing?
These watches deliver the information density of WAP feature phones with interactive models that are not much different (scroll wheel), plus panning and zooming on a tiny screen.
The people projecting the launch of the 2007 era iPhone as an industry defining moment that's going to kick off whole new app business models I think are extrapolating without thinking about it.
These devices are primarily best suited for sensors, and for information radiation tasks: notifying you of information and allowing quick response or dismissal.
But a 300Mah "smart" device with a 38mm screen being something you're going to spend a lot of time downloading apps and using "on the device itself" (and not on the iPhone) I think is too far of an extrapolation.
Maybe I'm wrong and this will be claim chowder thrown in my face in a few years, but to me, the trend towards bigger screens on phones is a perfectly example of why these watches will always be limited.
Humans are visual creatures, and a device that has the screen size and interactivity of a virtual tamagotchi is a fashion accessory toy, not something we will build our whole life around like mobile phones and tablets.
The watch isn't meant to compete with your phone for content consumption, it's for subtle notifications and alerts. Who is calling me? What meeting am I going to in 10 minutes? Who just texted me? I see myself getting a completely silent alert and then discretely glancing at my wrist during a meal or some other time it would be inappropriate to be fiddling with my phone. I can politely excuse myself if it's important.
I don't expect to watch a movie on it, I just want it to look stylish and help me stay connected in a less douchey way. The fact that it may replace my Polar heart strap and watch when I'm working out (Hopefully it's more reliable than the Basis watch) is just icing on the cake.
I have a feeling there will be some interesting third party applications, off the top of my head it might be nice to know when my boss is nearby, perhaps based on strength of his phone's bluetooth signal.
But I think that's kind of the point isn't it? Out of the box, the watch will more or less do all the thing anybody really wants it to do. It's going to be very hard to build a large viable app ecosystem for these things. At best I think Smartwatch apps will just be secondary notification displays for apps you're already buying and putting on your phone.
> I don't recall Apple pitching this as something you watch to play around with for a couple of hours at an airport with.
You're right, they didn't. But I'm hard pressed to figure out a great deal of apps for the watch other than what's pretty much going to be shipping with it. reddit mail notification? point to my car?
I dunno. It seems like there's a very limited ecosystem (read:business) to spending lots of effort making Apple Watch apps for exactly the reason you're stating.
At best I think Smartwatch apps will
just be secondary notification displays
for apps you're already buying and
putting on your phone.
My expectation is that the only way an app will get on your Apple Watch is if it comes bundled inside of an app you have installed on your iPhone, a la iOS 8 extensions.
Someone should tell EA about this. They already claimed to be working on bringing game apps to the watch...
The first thing I thought was, other than tic tac toe, what game could you possibly display on a display that small?
I also think, a watch like that is good first and foremost as a quick check on what going on regarding your phone in our pocket.
But for this usecase, I think the price point of this watch is a bit much. I would love to have my watch buzz when getting a new text on my phone. And with a quick glance I can see if it is important or not without having to take my phone out of my pocket. This would be neat. But I don't think I would spend 350 dollars for this convenience.
The one I always think about is maps on my wrist. Ever since I saw the promotional photo of a guy on a bike with a Moto360 & maps, it pops into my head as I am biking and my phone is hollering directions from inside my pocket.
As somebody who has been wearing a Pebble for a year or so, I agree that this won't be as dramatic as the iPhone. But I do think wearables are going to be a major market.
The modern smartphone is a huge compromise. It has to do everything but it has to fit in our pocket and run all day. It's basically a Swiss Army knife: sure, it does everything. But it doesn't do anything very well.
I think the trend toward larger phones is exactly why wearables will be big: If you can have the little and low-interaction things on your wrist, then that lets the phone change to be better for the tasks that remain for it. A bigger screen and a bigger battery are more appealing if the phone only comes out when you actually need a big screen, rather than just to check the time or to acknowledge a text.
Interesting idea. Certainly a large percentage of our smartphone usage is turning on the screen to glance at a notification, then dismiss it. Smartwatches allow you to not have to do that. But the notification still comes to your phone, and still needs to be beamed to your wrist. So you don't save on any network usage battery. It's basically only the screen. Now the screen is expensive, no doubt. But even so, how much additional battery life would you get out of a phone from turning the screen on 50 times less over the course of a day?
I don't think it's really about getting more life out of the existing battery. I think it's more about better integration with people's lives. E.g., I don't want to have a fit of beepilepsy every time I get a text or a calendar notification. Glancing at the watch is way better.
But as a side effect, I think moving a bunch of watch-friendly things to a watch will let you make the phone bigger. That won't reduce total power usage, but it will increase power availability.
I think that they have the potential to dramatically change the app environment and allow for some very interesting interactions, but I agree that they will primarily be an extension of the iPhone. What that means for Apple's bottom line is unclear - if it makes iPhones incredibly more useful such that a significant percentage of iPhone owners buy the watch, it may move the needle quite a bit.
Best case scenario I can see this becoming an iPod sized business. That certainly wouldn’t be bad and I could well imagine that’s exactly what Apple expects this to be. (The margins might be better, so they might be able to make more money.) Anything beyond that seems a fantasy to me.
I think the problem is that when you talk to "watch guys", they're all after a very specific aesthetic and functional goal. But that market is extremely small and self selecting.
Meanwhile, the mass market watch is something very different (and nearly extinct after the cell phone display accomplished the same goals).
So let's learn from two wildly successful watch brands in the 90s:
- The information density on the Apple Watch display more comparable to something like the Timex Ironman watches than a mechanical watch. Apple also implies their watch can 'take a lickin' with their sapphire display and completely encased motherboard design.
- The ability to customize the bands and face designs is in line with Swatch in the 90s. People will likely buy several band accessories the same way Swatch's customers bought multiple Swatches.
The only thing not mass market about the Apple Watch is it's price.
I'm guessing the low end of the product line will fill out the same way the iPhone did. They will keep all the tooling and production the same, but gradually reduce the price to $100 while they work out the software kinks.
But in the end, the product will be amazingly successful because it has the DNA of amazingly successful predecessors.
> I'm guessing the low end of the product line will fill out the same way the iPhone did. They will keep all the tooling and production the same, but gradually reduce the price to $100 while they work out the software kinks.
The iPhone's price did not drop over the years. The cheapest iPhone 6 you can buy today is $650. The original iPhone launched at $600 back in 2007.
EDIT: I'll eat my hat if Apple ever sells a Watch for $100.
The original iPhone was 600 dollars ON contract, which was later dropped to 500.
Yes, some people figured out how to crack the SIM-lock, so they could use a different sim card and not activate the AT&T contract that you were supposed to activate when first connecting it to iTunes, but that's an edge case that doesn't change the fact that it was sold on contract.
The 650 dollar price for iphone 6 is OFF contract. So the iPhone price has significantly dropped over the years.
The original iPhone was on contract but unsubsidized. The iPhone 3G was launched at $199 with a 2 year contract and every iPhone since then has stuck exactly at that price point at launch.
I think what the above commenter means is that the first gen iWatch will keep the tooling and production the same and price will lower, while at the same time adding newer models at the same price point as the first gen at its release, therefore filling out the low end the same way they did with the iPhone.
No but you can buy the iPhone 5C for $450.00 If the watch follows a similar path then a year after release there could possibly be an Apple Watch for 250.00 (maybe 200). I'm not sure it'll ever get to $100 (Apple prefers not to play that low).
That's not true. Apple drops the price on older models while continuing to sell them alongside the newest ones. The cheapest new iPhone you can buy is $450.
Yea so you can buy old models at a cheaper price. 2 years from now maybe you'll be able to buy the Apple Watch 1 for $250 or something but most people will want the latest version. I seriously doubt we'd ever see Apple sell the Watch for $100, that's just not how they do business.
The only thing that is "wrong" so far is the price for the average user, but so was the iPod, the iPhone, and my beloved MacBook Air. Give price a few years and it will be a mass market $99 (nano) $199 (standard) $299 (pro/luxury).
So far there are 2 smart watches that have nailed the design the Moto 360 and the Apple Watch. The rest have a ways to go.
A smart watch has to function pretty well as a nice looking fashion accessory before it ever is going to do anything else useful.
Personally, I think the Moto 360 is simply far too large. It looks fairly good on someone with a very wide risk, but a little ridiculous on someone with a small wrist (like me).
This is a problem with circular displays. They naturally have quite a smaller area than the circumscribing square -- they're missing all four corners, every one of which can be used for a UI element. To compensate, the display just needs to be larger -- too large, in the case of the Moto 360, in my humble opinion.
There are at least two constraints on wristwatch size. Let the Z axis be in the direction of the thickness of the watch. Let the X axis be in the direction parallel to your arm. Let the Y axis be perpendicular to the X axis and the Z axis.
1. You do not want it to extend along X axis too far toward the fingers, or it will interfere with moving your hand at the wrist.
2. You do not want to extend too far either way along the Y axis, or it will be too easy to accidentally hit things with it.
The point of the post above yours is that if a circle with diameter D is an acceptable size--it doesn't extend too far in the X or Y directions to interfere with your wrist or hit things--then a square of side D will generally also be acceptable. The square will give you more face area than the circle.
Most of the top shelf watches are going to be fine. It's the Casio, Seiko and Swatches of the world that are going to be in trouble. As is every fitness tracker or health monitor.
But the best quote for me is this one:
"In the future though I see a risk: a generational fracture. The old people, you and me, sticking to the good old mechanical watches and the young people sticking to digital watches - their comfort zone."
I'm curious how good the heart rate tracking is. Most current fitness gadgets suck terribly at tracking heart rate while exercising. afaik polar or garmin plus a chest band is the only thing that does a good job, whereas most fitbit type gadgets are only good at calculating resting heart rates. If apple can crack that, they'll find a lot of purchasers. And garmin / polar will be roadkill: their devices are expensive, single use, a big hassle (that damn chest strap is annoying, plus now you have two batteries to worry about), with shitty software.
The heart monitor technology used via diodes on these smart watches isn't very accurate. I can't seem to find the article I was reading but I remember a roughly +/- 10bpm error rate. That's also roughly what I've experienced myself on the LG and Moto watches I've tried.
That said, if you buy a Garmin or similar heart tracker watch, they package it with a Heart Rate monitor transmitter you strap around your chest. Garmin would love to be able to cut costs and keep everything in one piece of hardware, but the prosumer crowd who buy this hardware for Triathlons etc would be furious if the product was inaccurate.
I love the consistency of the HR data I get from my old-school Polar watch and band, but you're right, after a few hours the band is pretty uncomfortable. I was quite disappointed with the Basis watch. Even when it did work my HR would often swing up and down unpredictably.
If Apple nails the HR sensor, I will be stoked. I have often wanted to have an entire days worth of HR data so I can make better guesses about my daily caloric burn rate.
They're already in trouble. Astonishingly few people wear watches anymore. We're basically never more than a glance away from a time keeping device and display pretty much anywhere we are these days.
There will be no such fracture. Insofar as voice becomes a useful interface for services, smart watches will proliferate. They don't need to be unlocked as long as they're on your wrist. They eliminate the problem of talking to an invisible microphone that made Bluetooth headsets become less popular.
I see this being moderately successful for apple. This is probably one of the first product launches that I saw where I thought all the work they did was cool, but just can't see myself ever wearing one of these. In fact I stopped wearing watches in general because I had a smartphone pocket watch. The less jewelry I can have, the better...
It's one of the few Apple products that really made me sit up and say "wow, they really produced something that's a better, more polished version than the competitors, nicely done!".
And then I realize I got rid of watches when I start carrying a phone around with a clock on it and have no interest in returning to wearing them at all. I got rid of them for a reason, and the burden of pulling my phone out of my pocket every once in a while isn't so bad that I feel the expense plus discomfort of any kind of watch is a good tradeoff.
I find the most interesting thing about this article is the writer - Gassee. I am curious what the opinion on him is from current Apple employees and Apple watchers. Has time improved or hurt his reputation?
Now, you're stuck in an airpot and bored. You keep your phone in your pocket and stare at your watch with a 38mm screen. Can you imagine spending an hour or two interacting with and consuming content on this thing?
These watches deliver the information density of WAP feature phones with interactive models that are not much different (scroll wheel), plus panning and zooming on a tiny screen.
The people projecting the launch of the 2007 era iPhone as an industry defining moment that's going to kick off whole new app business models I think are extrapolating without thinking about it.
These devices are primarily best suited for sensors, and for information radiation tasks: notifying you of information and allowing quick response or dismissal.
But a 300Mah "smart" device with a 38mm screen being something you're going to spend a lot of time downloading apps and using "on the device itself" (and not on the iPhone) I think is too far of an extrapolation.
Maybe I'm wrong and this will be claim chowder thrown in my face in a few years, but to me, the trend towards bigger screens on phones is a perfectly example of why these watches will always be limited.
Humans are visual creatures, and a device that has the screen size and interactivity of a virtual tamagotchi is a fashion accessory toy, not something we will build our whole life around like mobile phones and tablets.