After my first iPhone in 2007 I stopped wearing watches. I know some may need to still wear, but in my profession (college prof.) it's really not needed. I have a repeating alarm for the end of class (and the students know what the duck means). It would take an entire iPhone's functionality on the arm to get me to even consider wearing one again.
Wow, you guys are really negative and critical. I have been following this project from the beginning and it's amazing how nice this watch actually turned out! You have to remember they designed and made this watch in 6 months and it only costs $150; it was the most successful kick starter project ever at over 10 million dollars so it obvious appeals to a large number of people. I happen to like the design and how it functions, it's intended to be a second screen for your phone, not an all in one mini watch computer. Really excited to get one!
I'm a backer of this watch and I'm looking forward to receiving it. It's interesting to read the comments above regarding it's appearance. I'd have to agree it's not the sexiest watch, but that is not what I saw when I saw this watch, I saw the functionality of it - Caller ID, SMS, email, control of music, etc. w/o having to whip out my phone. There have been attempts at designing a wearable computer for decades, and in my mind we are there, but it's not a computer in the classical sense of a PC i.e. laptop in pieces, it's a smartphone as the CPU which is connected to wearable peripherals such as earphones and smartwatches all connected via bluetooth.
I've seen discussions and have even been asked what the point is, "just pull out your phone". If it doesn't make sense to you, then it's probably not right for you, but it works for me. Examples are: When I'm working I wear a BT headphone while listening to music and taking calls, but I'm often away from my desk where my iPhone is docked, so when a call comes in I don't know who is or when I get an alert tone that an email has come in I don't know if it's something I need to respond to or if it can wait. Another case is when I'm doing outdoor activities where pulling out my phone can be inconvenient or my hands just happen to be wet, dirty, etc. With the watch I can quickly identify if it's something I need or want to address or if I can ignore it w/o stopping what I'm in the middle of. A watch is relatively discrete too, so if you're in a situation where pulling out your phone is inappropriate, such as a meeting or dinner, it's a better choice, especially when you're required to respond to some messages, such as being on call or if you're out with children at home - A glance at a watch requires less effort and is much less obvious. While I mentioned the wearable computer, I'm not so sure about what Google is doing with Glass, unlike a watch it's not discrete and I just don't see a lot of people being comfortable with such a device on their face.
I would be very interested in an Apple made watch, but who knows if and when such a device will come out. I think Pebble was such a big Kickstarter success is because there's has been an unanswered demand for just such a device, I for one have been wanting something like this for years, I'm sure smartphone makers have all taken note and are contemplating a similar device. That might not be so good for Pebble in the long run, but at least they drew attention to the general interest in smartwatches.
I personally also don't really like the design. And it's all plastic, so I don't really know where the comment "top quality materials" came from. I do however, like the idea and I honestly believe that the watch would be very useful if it had some sort of way to also respond to text messages. Being able to read them is 1 thing, but you still need to get the phone out of your bag/pocket to respond
On the other hand, this is what I believe to be top quality materials… not exactly the same type of watch (the Pebble is a smart watch after all), but this is where I'd love to see watches go as far as looks go. For me this would be infinitely more useful (no longer having a bulge on your wrist for one):
I'm a backer of this watch and I'm looking forward to receiving it. It's interesting to read the comments above regarding it's appearance. I'd have to agree it's not the sexiest watch, but that is not what I saw when I saw this watch, I saw the functionality of it - Caller ID, SMS, email, control of music, etc. w/o having to whip out my phone. There have been attempts at designing a wearable computer for decades, and in my mind we are there, but it's not a computer in the classical sense of a PC i.e. laptop in pieces, it's a smartphone as the CPU which is connected to wearable peripherals such as earphones and smartwatches all connected via bluetooth.
Flabber, that thin wrist watch is just that, a watch not a smart watch. At Flabber and the others going about to big, to ugly... please enlighten us with your engineering skills on major breakthrough in battery's and electronics, plus waterproffing, that would make this thing any thinner and prettier? Remember boys and girls, LCD takes battery life, bluetooth takes battery life, settings you guessed it takes battery life but unless you imbed a major battery into your arm, or you have a major breakthrough in battery tech, then you will have to have a large battery in the watch making it... yes you guessed it, big which usually is not pretty. (yes, major run on sentence batman)... And with big you most times get ugly.
As Kai stated, not pretty but functional. Granted a Smart car is not pretty but it gets you to the same place as a BMW. But are you really wanting to pay 2K-3K for the smart watch to make it pretty? Until battery tech is another generation or two, you will have the larger functional unit for 150 bucks than something pretty for 2-3K and still have major bugs in the system. You roll out something functional, then work on the bug's to polish it a bit. Then later on work on the design.
Everyone is saying watch of the 80's... well, that it maybe, but compare those to the 90's. Do you not think that the smart watches will not follow suit? Function then style... works with most items, watches, cars, TV's, etc. Give them time people.
It's just a matter of personal taste for me. I personally just don't like plastic watches... smart ór "dumb" watches. The screen also has a noticable low resolution, which sets me off personally. I do realize that with all the functions that it has that it will suck the life out of its battery a lot faster than "normal" watches, but for a function-tech-friendly watch I assume it's also targeted towards people who áre tech-friendly, and these type of people usually "expect" a little more.
But I find the comparisation between a Smart and a BMW not very well-chosen. A car dóés take you from A-to-B in both cases, but a car is also in a completely different price range than a watch. And it's perfectly possible to design a watch that lóóks better without cranking up the price an immense amount (the BMW is also worth a lot more compared to a Smart because of the build quality and added functionality/HP/speed/materials used). The link I gave is a "dumb" watch, but you can tell that they've thought about the design a lot more.
I'm not saying the Pebble is ubly. Not by any means… a multitude of standard watches have been using a similar design for years now, and the design itsélf is a lot better on the Pebble. But I do believe it looks a little, underwhelming, by a lack of a better word (sorry, English is my secondary language, so I sometimes can't come up with the word I'm looking for). I have the feeling that the developers/designers of Pebble has been putting a lot more energy into the functionality and ease-of-use of the watch. And for good reason: functionality-wise it's an amazing device! Design-wise it's just not great... decent, but not great.
So these tech folks at CES don't care that this thing is fugly as hell? If Apple heads in this direction, Ive will kill this design in his sleep! Imagine a watch called a pebble that actually looks as though its inspired by a pebble!!!
Unfortunately apart from looking good this watch doesn't do anything. It doesn't have an alarm clock, only one type of watchface, the display is not backlit which means you will struggle to read the time in the dark. Those two watches are in two totally separate categories.
Anyhow my daughter just got a retro gold Casio digital straight out of the 80's, I hate it, she LOVE's it, go figure.
I jumped on board early on for a Pebble, I like it's look and am very pleased with the better than expected functions as well as the final fit and finish. I'm sure these folks will do just fine with the folks who do like them.
Anyhow my daughter just got a retro gold Casio digital straight out of the 80's, I hate it, she LOVE's it, go figure.
I jumped on board early on for a Pebble, I like it's look and am very pleased with the better than expected functions as well as the final fit and finish. I'm sure these folks will do just fine with the folks who do like them.
1) ¿Que? People aren't nice unless they lie about they feel about a product to spare the feelings of the company that made it or their customers?
2) It's irrelevant if it will do just fine with the folks who do like them. What is relevant is if that number if high enough to allow for the product to evolve. Looking at the fit and finish, design and capabilities I simply don't see it. It doesn't affect me negatively if I'm wrong, in fact if they can do a much better job on a future version if could affect me positively, but at this point it doesn't look promising.
I have to agree with this.
When I heard about these "smart watches" I thought, well, if you wear a watch this might be cool, but functionally what effective purpose does it serve but save you a couple nano-seconds from pulling your phone out of your pocket? And your phone has a much bigger, easier to read display and already shows the time, not to mention other notifications. And there's people like me who haven't worn a watch since I got my first mobile phone. It's utterly pointless.
The time telling functionality will recede into the background as unimportant just like voice calls on a smartphone. That leaves texts, apps and Internet. Unless they make this a true extension of a smartphone, it will fail.
Really tough crowd here. While I can't say it's not flash watch, I certainly don't think it's ugly. The bulk of the watch is the battery, which is suppose to last a week before charging, which takes about 2 hours for a full charge. If you're interested the Pebble team have provided a lot of pictures of the innards via their project update posts on Kickstarter. The Pebble also uses the standard 22 mm watchband so you're not restricted to the stock band. From the pictures, they definitely could have made this smaller if they sacrificed battery size, but I personally think they made the right call with size and function.
You are right that this watch will need to attract more people to survive and only time will tell if they struck the right balance with this design, but I think raising $10 million in backing from crowd funding suggests Pebble will do will with the current design. Clearly, based on some of the comments above, there's a large portion of people it simply will not appeal to. This will be my first wrist watch since I got my first cell phone in the late 90s. Maybe they should have marketed this as a wrist notifier that just also happens to tell time - just like the iPhone (or other smart phones) is a mini computer that just happens to be able to make calls.
It seems to me that the Pebble, like other "smart watches," is only a peripheral for your smartphone. A convenient display on your wrist that can accept a certain limited number of inputs to apps on your smartphone and can present small chunks of information from those apps. Not a bad idea. But not great either.
I see several problems with the "smartphone peripheral on your wrist" concept:
First, whether or not the Pebble-style smart watch concept takes off, I think it's just an interim phase. The ultimate evolution, of course, being a smart *phone* on your wrist. Not just a display that talks to your smartphone. And we all know that a smart phone is really a tiny mobile computer with a phone feature. Right? And competing in the mobile computing space is very hard unless your name is Apple or Samsung.
So maybe, just maybe, Pebble could evolve into a wrist-top computer over time. But Apple has already shipped the vastly more powerful iPod nano in a similar size. Been there done that, and they've since morphed it into a 16:9 video-capable device, too big to be worn like a watch. Not terribly hard to shrink it back to watch-size. The real trick would be to develop a user interface for such a small screen.
Enter Siri. Voice is the only way to issue any sort of command other than a one-finger gesture to a device the size of a watch. That requires a wireless data connection, but it's only a matter of time before Qualcomm can deliver a cellular chipset that's small and efficient enough to allow a wrist-top smart phone with decent battery life. And that turns your smart watch into a smart phone, more or less. Doubtful that Pebble can start from zero in the cell phone industry and survive. Apple did it to great success, but they're a vastly larger company with very talented management, deep pockets, a robust infrastructure + ecosystem, immense supply chain leverage, and worldwide mindshare. Good luck competing against all that.
Next, let's imagine for the sake of discussion that Pebble-style smart watches become the "next big thing." Unless Pebble patents its designs thoroughly (and especially if they don't) there would be the inevitable race to the bottom. Dozens or hundreds of competitors would directly copy Pebble's designs (or innovate around Pebble's patents). And if that isn't bad enough, how many times have we seen bleeding-edge companies pioneer a market segment only to get crushed by a flood of lower-cost look-alikes and/or bigger-name brands? (E.g. Macintosh vs. Windows PC in the 1990s, Diamond Rio MP3 player vs. Apple iPod in the 2000s.)
Finally, more realistically, let's imagine that Pebble-style smart watches don't catch on. They'll fulfill their Kickstarter pre-orders, then sales will slow down to a trickle (except during the holiday season as stocking stuffers.) This is really the biggest problem. Is there actually a big enough market for connected watches? I'm not so sure.
When I heard about these "smart watches" I thought, well, if you wear a watch this might be cool, but functionally what effective purpose does it serve but save you a couple nano-seconds from pulling your phone out of your pocket? And your phone has a much bigger, easier to read display and already shows the time, not to mention other notifications. And there's people like me who haven't worn a watch since I got my first mobile phone. It's utterly pointless.
BINGO. People who talk about Apple making a "smart watch" are dreaming (or smoking too much pot or something). Why would Apple make a watch?
What possible purpose could they have to "re-invent" a device that was superseded by the emergence of digital technology as far back as the 1970's? Wristwatches are history. All the functions of the most complicated multi-purpose watch can be, and often are, contained in a chip that would literally fit on the head of a pin. Other than as a fashion statement, there is no reason to wear a wrist watch at all.
Apple *may* make a wearable computing device for your wrist (maybe), but to talk of it in terms of "smart watches" is ridiculous. We should really be talking about wearable computing devices and what is or is not practical or dooable in that arena. The whole "watch" thing is a red herring driven by geeks (who are some of the last people alive that like wristwatches).
Wow, most of you guys come across as stuck up jerks in this thread. Good job proving that many apple people are elitist a holes. Why don't you try using the watch before you say is a POS. Ignorant.
Pulling out your phone is fine if you work in a clean environment like an office, clothing store, etc. But you don't want to handle your expensive smartphone when you're hands are covered in say food, dirt, etc. and you make frequently be in a position where you can stay in BT range of your phone, but would rather leave it in a vehicle, a nearby shelf, or even in your jacket across the room. There are jobs that require logging time while environments that are potentially harmful to our phone or when carrying it on your person so that you can pull it out is not ideal. The same argument could be made for BT earpieces, "why not just wipe out your phone", b/c there are situations were it's just not appropriate or convenient.
BINGO. People who talk about Apple making a "smart watch" are dreaming (or smoking too much pot or something). Why would Apple make a watch?
What possible purpose could they have to "re-invent" a device that was superseded by the emergence of digital technology as far back as the 1970's? Wristwatches are history. All the functions of the most complicated multi-purpose watch can be, and often are, contained in a chip that would literally fit on the head of a pin. Other than as a fashion statement, there is no reason to wear a wrist watch at all.
Apple *may* make a wearable computing device for your wrist (maybe), but to talk of it in terms of "smart watches" is ridiculous. We should really be talking about wearable computing devices and what is or is not practical or dooable in that arena. The whole "watch" thing is a red herring driven by geeks (who are some of the last people alive that like wristwatches).
I'd think of it like we think of the iPhone. It has "phone" in the name and yet that is but a single app on the device and one that is likely used less often as other apps. I think when people talk about a smart watch it's the same thing. They aren't so much wanting a watch that has some computing features but wearable computers that can also tell you the time.
This Pebble watch tells me we're not quite there yet but I think a wrist device is certainly feasible. I'm quite interested in the wristbands that monitor your body's functions but those also have some major hurdles for me to want to invest in one. I think eventually we'll have internal devices that monitor how health, activity, sleep cycle for most of our life that can crunch the numbers to alert if certain patterns form. A proactive answer to health care instead of the more common reactive.
I like what they are trying to do but there is nothing about the current design I would consider buying. It's too limited, too thick, and simply looks cheap.
I cannot imagine why this thing is getting so much ink (we need a new idiom - maybe "so many 'trons" or bits) - other than as a temporary placeholder for some new future class devices with a broader range of much more useful functions - but now that my own wrist has been freed of an appliance I no longer need, I can't see putting another one that replicates any pocketable functions back on it. NTM one less gadget/piece of "clothing" to keep track of.
However, I do get that retro/virtual trends do induce successive generations to temporarily embrace wearing chunky ugly crap recalling bygone (or fictional) eras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Casio is getting a run for its money from the early '80s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereo-type
Unfortunately apart from looking good this watch doesn't do anything. It doesn't have an alarm clock, only one type of watchface, the display is not backlit which means you will struggle to read the time in the dark.
80's is too much credit. Dick Tracy would've thrown this in the trash in the '50's - no two way communication and, what, I'm going to read my TXTS a word or two at a time in low-contrast e-ink? Now there's an experience upgrade
Meanwhile, my Casio (I owned several, nerd that I was) was a competent calculator, stop watch and more - and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not at all sure this puppy will even know the time once it's out of bluetooth range of your phone. And so will be as useless as a rock, errrr, Pebble.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox
Wow, you guys are really negative and critical. I have been following this project from the beginning and it's amazing how nice this watch actually turned out! You have to remember they designed and made this watch in 6 months and it only costs $150; it was the most successful kick starter project ever at over 10 million dollars so it obvious appeals to a large number of people. I happen to like the design and how it functions, it's intended to be a second screen for your phone, not an all in one mini watch computer. Really excited to get one!
Personally, I could be more negative and critical. Gadget start-ups weren't the primary intended target of Kickstarter in the first place - it was to be more a hot house for creative types as I read the initial reports and visited it at the time, but is now in danger of eclipsing "penny stocks" as a scam harbor for start-ups with no intention of doing anything other than separating the gullible from their money.
And while the founders had the best of intentions, I doubt they have the staff, expertise and capital to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff with effective monitoring and reporting.
Comments
After my first iPhone in 2007 I stopped wearing watches. I know some may need to still wear, but in my profession (college prof.) it's really not needed. I have a repeating alarm for the end of class (and the students know what the duck means). It would take an entire iPhone's functionality on the arm to get me to even consider wearing one again.
I'm a backer of this watch and I'm looking forward to receiving it. It's interesting to read the comments above regarding it's appearance. I'd have to agree it's not the sexiest watch, but that is not what I saw when I saw this watch, I saw the functionality of it - Caller ID, SMS, email, control of music, etc. w/o having to whip out my phone. There have been attempts at designing a wearable computer for decades, and in my mind we are there, but it's not a computer in the classical sense of a PC i.e. laptop in pieces, it's a smartphone as the CPU which is connected to wearable peripherals such as earphones and smartwatches all connected via bluetooth.
I've seen discussions and have even been asked what the point is, "just pull out your phone". If it doesn't make sense to you, then it's probably not right for you, but it works for me. Examples are: When I'm working I wear a BT headphone while listening to music and taking calls, but I'm often away from my desk where my iPhone is docked, so when a call comes in I don't know who is or when I get an alert tone that an email has come in I don't know if it's something I need to respond to or if it can wait. Another case is when I'm doing outdoor activities where pulling out my phone can be inconvenient or my hands just happen to be wet, dirty, etc. With the watch I can quickly identify if it's something I need or want to address or if I can ignore it w/o stopping what I'm in the middle of. A watch is relatively discrete too, so if you're in a situation where pulling out your phone is inappropriate, such as a meeting or dinner, it's a better choice, especially when you're required to respond to some messages, such as being on call or if you're out with children at home - A glance at a watch requires less effort and is much less obvious. While I mentioned the wearable computer, I'm not so sure about what Google is doing with Glass, unlike a watch it's not discrete and I just don't see a lot of people being comfortable with such a device on their face.
I would be very interested in an Apple made watch, but who knows if and when such a device will come out. I think Pebble was such a big Kickstarter success is because there's has been an unanswered demand for just such a device, I for one have been wanting something like this for years, I'm sure smartphone makers have all taken note and are contemplating a similar device. That might not be so good for Pebble in the long run, but at least they drew attention to the general interest in smartwatches.
Originally Posted by flabber
I personally also don't really like the design. And it's all plastic, so I don't really know where the comment "top quality materials" came from. I do however, like the idea and I honestly believe that the watch would be very useful if it had some sort of way to also respond to text messages. Being able to read them is 1 thing, but you still need to get the phone out of your bag/pocket to respond
On the other hand, this is what I believe to be top quality materials… not exactly the same type of watch (the Pebble is a smart watch after all), but this is where I'd love to see watches go as far as looks go. For me this would be infinitely more useful (no longer having a bulge on your wrist for one):
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1655017763/cst-01-the-worlds-thinnest-watch?ref=live
Originally Posted by kaioslider
I'm a backer of this watch and I'm looking forward to receiving it. It's interesting to read the comments above regarding it's appearance. I'd have to agree it's not the sexiest watch, but that is not what I saw when I saw this watch, I saw the functionality of it - Caller ID, SMS, email, control of music, etc. w/o having to whip out my phone. There have been attempts at designing a wearable computer for decades, and in my mind we are there, but it's not a computer in the classical sense of a PC i.e. laptop in pieces, it's a smartphone as the CPU which is connected to wearable peripherals such as earphones and smartwatches all connected via bluetooth.
Flabber, that thin wrist watch is just that, a watch not a smart watch. At Flabber and the others going about to big, to ugly... please enlighten us with your engineering skills on major breakthrough in battery's and electronics, plus waterproffing, that would make this thing any thinner and prettier? Remember boys and girls, LCD takes battery life, bluetooth takes battery life, settings you guessed it takes battery life but unless you imbed a major battery into your arm, or you have a major breakthrough in battery tech, then you will have to have a large battery in the watch making it... yes you guessed it, big which usually is not pretty. (yes, major run on sentence batman)... And with big you most times get ugly.
As Kai stated, not pretty but functional. Granted a Smart car is not pretty but it gets you to the same place as a BMW. But are you really wanting to pay 2K-3K for the smart watch to make it pretty? Until battery tech is another generation or two, you will have the larger functional unit for 150 bucks than something pretty for 2-3K and still have major bugs in the system. You roll out something functional, then work on the bug's to polish it a bit. Then later on work on the design.
Everyone is saying watch of the 80's... well, that it maybe, but compare those to the 90's. Do you not think that the smart watches will not follow suit? Function then style... works with most items, watches, cars, TV's, etc. Give them time people.
@Hawkblade;
It's just a matter of personal taste for me. I personally just don't like plastic watches... smart ór "dumb" watches. The screen also has a noticable low resolution, which sets me off personally. I do realize that with all the functions that it has that it will suck the life out of its battery a lot faster than "normal" watches, but for a function-tech-friendly watch I assume it's also targeted towards people who áre tech-friendly, and these type of people usually "expect" a little more.
But I find the comparisation between a Smart and a BMW not very well-chosen. A car dóés take you from A-to-B in both cases, but a car is also in a completely different price range than a watch. And it's perfectly possible to design a watch that lóóks better without cranking up the price an immense amount (the BMW is also worth a lot more compared to a Smart because of the build quality and added functionality/HP/speed/materials used). The link I gave is a "dumb" watch, but you can tell that they've thought about the design a lot more.
I'm not saying the Pebble is ubly. Not by any means… a multitude of standard watches have been using a similar design for years now, and the design itsélf is a lot better on the Pebble. But I do believe it looks a little, underwhelming, by a lack of a better word (sorry, English is my secondary language, so I sometimes can't come up with the word I'm looking for). I have the feeling that the developers/designers of Pebble has been putting a lot more energy into the functionality and ease-of-use of the watch. And for good reason: functionality-wise it's an amazing device! Design-wise it's just not great... decent, but not great.
Unfortunately apart from looking good this watch doesn't do anything. It doesn't have an alarm clock, only one type of watchface, the display is not backlit which means you will struggle to read the time in the dark. Those two watches are in two totally separate categories.
Anyhow my daughter just got a retro gold Casio digital straight out of the 80's, I hate it, she LOVE's it, go figure.
I jumped on board early on for a Pebble, I like it's look and am very pleased with the better than expected functions as well as the final fit and finish. I'm sure these folks will do just fine with the folks who do like them.
1) ¿Que? People aren't nice unless they lie about they feel about a product to spare the feelings of the company that made it or their customers?
2) It's irrelevant if it will do just fine with the folks who do like them. What is relevant is if that number if high enough to allow for the product to evolve. Looking at the fit and finish, design and capabilities I simply don't see it. It doesn't affect me negatively if I'm wrong, in fact if they can do a much better job on a future version if could affect me positively, but at this point it doesn't look promising.
Really tough crowd here. While I can't say it's not flash watch, I certainly don't think it's ugly. The bulk of the watch is the battery, which is suppose to last a week before charging, which takes about 2 hours for a full charge. If you're interested the Pebble team have provided a lot of pictures of the innards via their project update posts on Kickstarter. The Pebble also uses the standard 22 mm watchband so you're not restricted to the stock band. From the pictures, they definitely could have made this smaller if they sacrificed battery size, but I personally think they made the right call with size and function.
You are right that this watch will need to attract more people to survive and only time will tell if they struck the right balance with this design, but I think raising $10 million in backing from crowd funding suggests Pebble will do will with the current design. Clearly, based on some of the comments above, there's a large portion of people it simply will not appeal to. This will be my first wrist watch since I got my first cell phone in the late 90s. Maybe they should have marketed this as a wrist notifier that just also happens to tell time - just like the iPhone (or other smart phones) is a mini computer that just happens to be able to make calls.
It seems to me that the Pebble, like other "smart watches," is only a peripheral for your smartphone. A convenient display on your wrist that can accept a certain limited number of inputs to apps on your smartphone and can present small chunks of information from those apps. Not a bad idea. But not great either.
I see several problems with the "smartphone peripheral on your wrist" concept:
First, whether or not the Pebble-style smart watch concept takes off, I think it's just an interim phase. The ultimate evolution, of course, being a smart *phone* on your wrist. Not just a display that talks to your smartphone. And we all know that a smart phone is really a tiny mobile computer with a phone feature. Right? And competing in the mobile computing space is very hard unless your name is Apple or Samsung.
So maybe, just maybe, Pebble could evolve into a wrist-top computer over time. But Apple has already shipped the vastly more powerful iPod nano in a similar size. Been there done that, and they've since morphed it into a 16:9 video-capable device, too big to be worn like a watch. Not terribly hard to shrink it back to watch-size. The real trick would be to develop a user interface for such a small screen.
Enter Siri. Voice is the only way to issue any sort of command other than a one-finger gesture to a device the size of a watch. That requires a wireless data connection, but it's only a matter of time before Qualcomm can deliver a cellular chipset that's small and efficient enough to allow a wrist-top smart phone with decent battery life. And that turns your smart watch into a smart phone, more or less. Doubtful that Pebble can start from zero in the cell phone industry and survive. Apple did it to great success, but they're a vastly larger company with very talented management, deep pockets, a robust infrastructure + ecosystem, immense supply chain leverage, and worldwide mindshare. Good luck competing against all that.
Next, let's imagine for the sake of discussion that Pebble-style smart watches become the "next big thing." Unless Pebble patents its designs thoroughly (and especially if they don't) there would be the inevitable race to the bottom. Dozens or hundreds of competitors would directly copy Pebble's designs (or innovate around Pebble's patents). And if that isn't bad enough, how many times have we seen bleeding-edge companies pioneer a market segment only to get crushed by a flood of lower-cost look-alikes and/or bigger-name brands? (E.g. Macintosh vs. Windows PC in the 1990s, Diamond Rio MP3 player vs. Apple iPod in the 2000s.)
Finally, more realistically, let's imagine that Pebble-style smart watches don't catch on. They'll fulfill their Kickstarter pre-orders, then sales will slow down to a trickle (except during the holiday season as stocking stuffers.) This is really the biggest problem. Is there actually a big enough market for connected watches? I'm not so sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
I have to agree with this.
When I heard about these "smart watches" I thought, well, if you wear a watch this might be cool, but functionally what effective purpose does it serve but save you a couple nano-seconds from pulling your phone out of your pocket? And your phone has a much bigger, easier to read display and already shows the time, not to mention other notifications. And there's people like me who haven't worn a watch since I got my first mobile phone. It's utterly pointless.
BINGO. People who talk about Apple making a "smart watch" are dreaming (or smoking too much pot or something). Why would Apple make a watch?
What possible purpose could they have to "re-invent" a device that was superseded by the emergence of digital technology as far back as the 1970's? Wristwatches are history. All the functions of the most complicated multi-purpose watch can be, and often are, contained in a chip that would literally fit on the head of a pin. Other than as a fashion statement, there is no reason to wear a wrist watch at all.
Apple *may* make a wearable computing device for your wrist (maybe), but to talk of it in terms of "smart watches" is ridiculous. We should really be talking about wearable computing devices and what is or is not practical or dooable in that arena. The whole "watch" thing is a red herring driven by geeks (who are some of the last people alive that like wristwatches).
Pulling out your phone is fine if you work in a clean environment like an office, clothing store, etc. But you don't want to handle your expensive smartphone when you're hands are covered in say food, dirt, etc. and you make frequently be in a position where you can stay in BT range of your phone, but would rather leave it in a vehicle, a nearby shelf, or even in your jacket across the room. There are jobs that require logging time while environments that are potentially harmful to our phone or when carrying it on your person so that you can pull it out is not ideal. The same argument could be made for BT earpieces, "why not just wipe out your phone", b/c there are situations were it's just not appropriate or convenient.
I'd think of it like we think of the iPhone. It has "phone" in the name and yet that is but a single app on the device and one that is likely used less often as other apps. I think when people talk about a smart watch it's the same thing. They aren't so much wanting a watch that has some computing features but wearable computers that can also tell you the time.
This Pebble watch tells me we're not quite there yet but I think a wrist device is certainly feasible. I'm quite interested in the wristbands that monitor your body's functions but those also have some major hurdles for me to want to invest in one. I think eventually we'll have internal devices that monitor how health, activity, sleep cycle for most of our life that can crunch the numbers to alert if certain patterns form. A proactive answer to health care instead of the more common reactive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I like what they are trying to do but there is nothing about the current design I would consider buying. It's too limited, too thick, and simply looks cheap.
I cannot imagine why this thing is getting so much ink (we need a new idiom - maybe "so many 'trons" or bits) - other than as a temporary placeholder for some new future class devices with a broader range of much more useful functions - but now that my own wrist has been freed of an appliance I no longer need, I can't see putting another one that replicates any pocketable functions back on it. NTM one less gadget/piece of "clothing" to keep track of.
However, I do get that retro/virtual trends do induce successive generations to temporarily embrace wearing chunky ugly crap recalling bygone (or fictional) eras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Casio is getting a run for its money from the early '80s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereo-type
Unfortunately apart from looking good this watch doesn't do anything. It doesn't have an alarm clock, only one type of watchface, the display is not backlit which means you will struggle to read the time in the dark.
80's is too much credit. Dick Tracy would've thrown this in the trash in the '50's - no two way communication and, what, I'm going to read my TXTS a word or two at a time in low-contrast e-ink? Now there's an experience upgrade
Meanwhile, my Casio (I owned several, nerd that I was) was a competent calculator, stop watch and more - and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not at all sure this puppy will even know the time once it's out of bluetooth range of your phone. And so will be as useless as a rock, errrr, Pebble.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox
Wow, you guys are really negative and critical. I have been following this project from the beginning and it's amazing how nice this watch actually turned out! You have to remember they designed and made this watch in 6 months and it only costs $150; it was the most successful kick starter project ever at over 10 million dollars so it obvious appeals to a large number of people. I happen to like the design and how it functions, it's intended to be a second screen for your phone, not an all in one mini watch computer. Really excited to get one!
Personally, I could be more negative and critical. Gadget start-ups weren't the primary intended target of Kickstarter in the first place - it was to be more a hot house for creative types as I read the initial reports and visited it at the time, but is now in danger of eclipsing "penny stocks" as a scam harbor for start-ups with no intention of doing anything other than separating the gullible from their money.
And while the founders had the best of intentions, I doubt they have the staff, expertise and capital to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff with effective monitoring and reporting.