Off topic, but why does Google return "About 187,000 results" for ("* is about to *" site:wired.com) and only "About 14,600 results" for ("is about to" site:wired.com)?
I believe the number of results is totally made up. If you click all the way to the last page you will find there are far fewer than whatever number is shown there.
a bit sensationalist. Sure it may mean a shift in UX - but an "action" is just another layer of abstraction on top of the apps people still need.
Again, the only real 'innovation' here IMO is allowing developers to continue to innovate - they will make billions off it though and that's the goal.
We've seen smart watch apps for years - most of the 'novelties' of smart watches have been played out on android devices - so I'm not really one to think that the concept of a smartwatch is going to make apps an afterthought - actually, the apps will be on your wrist all the time so it might have the opposite effect.
Seems a little extreme, but I guess that's how you get headlines and "virality."
It's a good point that watch-based apps will be much more limited in their interaction, and thus a new rise of contextual apps full of quick interactions will find a very appropriate home.
However that's completely neglecting the fact that communication, boredom, and play all necessitate longer interactions for which the phone-based app isn't going away anytime soon. Sure 'yo' and anything more substantial that that will break through as a new communications style, just like texting did, but a true conversation just isn't possible in that fashion. And many people have 10+ minutes to kill and want something to fill that timeline. Then there's actual problem solving, researching, news reading, etc that all won't be solved within 10 seconds nor would that be desired.
I'm most interested to see what becomes the 'killer' use case for a smart watch and I don't think notifications are it. I believe it's going to be connected to something larger in which the watch itself may not even need its screen or much interaction -- whether that's acting as a key/CC-replacement via NFC or transmitting gestures via EMG recordings like the Myo.
It took iPhones many years to refine what an app could be and we're still getting new waves of concepts. Exciting times :)
I really think people are underrating the heartbeat/drawing communication as the 'killer feature' on this thing.
As someone who has been in 2+ year long distance relationships, the thought of being able to send something like that in a quick few taps on the way into a meeting, or receiving similar, can be something that actually is as 'intimate' as they keep saying in the keynotes.
The hundreds of mild conveniences are going to add up, I reckon we'll get to the point where people need to have used a similar device and then 'go without' to realize what they've missed out on
my killer use case is, i need a few wrist watch as a fashion item.
if i am going to spend several hundred $ minimum on a watch watch, why not spend it on a decent looking digital watch where i can apply different clock faces.
i ofcourse not in the apple market, the strap pricing is just ridiculous compared to the already outrageous pricing of the watch itself... maybe the new haweii one.
if i am going to spend several hundred $ minimum on a watch watch, why not spend it on a decent looking digital watch where i can apply different clock faces.
because of the 18 hour battery life?
Given this constraint it may be a cool gadget at this time, but with a battery life of less than a day I don't see it as a replacement of a real watch.
The implication here could be for Facebook, Twitter and other apps relying on people addicted to their streams. Watches could mean less time spent staring at phone. Depends on how hooked we really are I guess
Think the reality is it will just let us consume these feeds more easily.
Twitter will adapt to the watch well and with less friction on notifications Facebook has more opportunities to engage you.
There does seem to be a strong narrative from commentators on 'freeing' us from our phones, but I can't see the reality being anything other than the other way around.
It's the phone breaking free from our pockets and making itself always available within reach and vision.
I think we'll look back and see this as the middle stage in the evolution in the phone consuming us.
The last stage of complete consumption, will be attaching to our heads / brains at some point.
I guess for a few things the time spent matters, but much of the time value created is what matters. If you don't make the watch apps free, it doesn't matter how much time is spent with them. Saving users time is value created, and app developers can charge for that.
Edit: speaking of signal/noise ratio, your comment downthread is substantive and a fine contribution. That's more the thing we're going for in HN comments.
I didn't downvote, but your comment doesn't add much to the conversation. Are smart watches DOA as a product category? Why? Can we still incorporate lessons from the single-tap model into phone apps? How?
Surely if Apple's watch is going to end of apps as we know it, it can only do so by achieving a sufficiently large mass in the market.
If it remains a niche product, then it'll be supported as a niche product by developers, while the great majority of mobile device devs keep targeting smart phones as per usual, with their usual modes of user interaction, and nothing changes.
Not likely. If (and that's a big"if") the Apple watch succeeds, others will copy the concept - much like the iPhone caused the world to move from buttons and resistive stylus-based screens to capacitive ones.
