1. Any device made by any company other than Google/Motorola is very likely to be iOS compatible as well as Android compatible. Why would Samsung, LG, or Sony make a peripheral that works only with a small percentage of the Android market (phones and tablets running Android 4.3 and up, currently 12.1%), while ignoring the much larger--and likely more profitable--iOS market (iPhone 4S and newer)? Maybe a Sony watch will follow the Android Wear protocol standards and thus integrate directly with the Android OS, but only support a Sony-watch app on iOS, but that might be more than good enough for many users. Just look at FitBit.
2. An iWatch doesn't add to the convergence of the iPhone or iPad. It's not disruptive to an existing market. It's just another peripheral. It doesn't bring much of anything unique to the table. It might be able to collect some biometric data, but a less complex non-interactive ring, necklace, or bracelet could do the same thing, for a lower cost, along with fewer constraints on its fashion design. The second display that an iWatch would provide adds little value to the typical user compared to the iPhone's larger screen. The iPhone already provides vibration and sound. Because of this, I seriously doubt that Apple has any plans to introduce an iWatch. They may well team with major fashion houses to introduce trendy iJewelry. Given how often and quickly fashion changes, annual new models of iJewelry that capture the latest fashion trends (while providing little or no additional functionality over existing models) could prove quite lucrative for Apple.
3. It's generally accepted that a smartphone is hard to read in bright daylight. I suspect that users will be far less forgiving of a smart watch. People are accustomed to watches being easily readable in sunlight. Samsung's very best OLED technology is still far short of that expectation. As a result, I predict that smart watches will be rejected by consumers.
Well all this is speculation that Apple are making a "watch" and will again invigorate an existing industry/category.
Though I'm certain Apple will not mention the word "watch" at all. It also will not be solely about notifications or doing stuff that your phone already does. Currently all smart watches offer nothing new that a smart phone already does.
The questions aren't, what will the interface be? What will the design be? How will I reply to a message? YAWN.
But...
What are the benefits of a device that is always touching your skin? How would you get people to wear such a device? How would it be fashionable? What relationship can electronics and the human body have together? If it is about Health... why are Apple doing this? What does this say about Apple for the next 10 years?
Remember, the iPod when first advertised wasn't about its features or its power. It was people listening to music and dancing. That's it.
I recommend watching the "make it wearables" videos on Creators Project... interesting ideas brewing there.
When it comes to design, Apple has nothing to worry about.
So true...it reminds me of MS desktop pictures that would ship with Windows. They were sort of good, i.e., bluey and kind of pretty but lacked the taste of Apple. Thinly disguised crap. And when you got into the OS's SW....ugh!
Google can copy the "chamfered" edges, thin fonts and pretty backgrounds, but it's so obvious that it's a copy. A poor copy at that. The watch is too thick! Hello!
So far, Samsung, Sony, HP, MS, Nokia, BB, Google/Moto have produced crappy, Googley/Androidy/Windozy guff!
P.S. Did anyone see my letter to the editor in this month's MacWorld (April 2014) "Photo Power-CLH126?" It's me! I've been "published!" Yepeeeeeee!
We are thinking about "Why would I wear a smartwatch since I do not wear a watch today?", "If I were to wear a smartwatch, what would I want the watch to provide me?", "How would I present information on a small display?"
I do! I want something that records biometrics and keeps track of them over a long period of time by periodically syncing with my iPhone which syncs with iCloud. I also want some basic features like telling the time, weather, and seeing the from of certain senders or message types via a vibration but only when a specific accelerometer and gyroscopic motion is observed by the device that tells it I'm lifting my wrist up in a certain way to read it. Most importantly, I want this wrist-worn device to know when it's been clasped to my wrist and when it's been removed so that it can be used with an iOS-based iDevice or Mac to allow for auto-locking/unlocking with the BT connection.
I'm also interested to see what automotive companies will do with smart watches.
BMW's i3 and Samsung's Galaxy Gear:
[images]
I'd like to see a car that will unlock when the BT of the watch gets close enough to initiate a secure handshake, but that also means it should be smart enough to disable this service if you remove the wrist-worn wearable. I can see some of the image's features being included but I think they go overboard with the features and therefore the complexity.
The more I read about this Google watch the more I am impressed with the concept and the more doubts I have about the actual product. The software interface that Google has created is stunning, but it is also the easy part. Touch screen, voice control (mic and speakers), dial illumination, activity monitoring…so many things to be powered. How? The watch is almost presented as a stand-alone device, but I imagine it will work in tandem with a smartphone, probably only ones with the newest version of Android. That might limit its initial usability. Bluetooth - another power requirement. The Motorola mockup watch faces give the impression there may be a real watch movement involved. How can they fit it all in the size of that mockup? Or are those watch faces just digital images? Again - power? And this is all going to come to market this summer? So many questions unanswered. Something just strikes me as wrong. I keep thinking of the old saying, "if its too good to be true…"
Its obvious that Google was working on this during the last year instead of a 64 bit version of Android, that will have to wait till 2015.
But I do think Google is serious about the Android Wear because the Announcement included get a SDK to developers within 6 months.
If Apple is going to announce a watch I think they will need to let developers start working on the SDK at this years WWDC in June, Otherwise the iWatch might not happen this year. The google watch is really about another way to expand "Ok Google Now" as an entry point to their services .
Its obvious that Google was working on this during the last year instead of a 64 bit version of Android, that will have to wait till 2015.
But I do think Google is serious about the Android Wear because the Announcement included get a SDK to developers within 6 months.
If Apple is going to announce a watch I think they will need to let developers start working on the SDK at this years WWDC in June, Otherwise the iWatch might not happen this year. The google watch is really about another way to expand "Ok Google Now" as an entry point to their services .
I would be more surprised if Apple did release an iWatch SDK. Google's goal here is advertising so they want HW vendors and 3rd-party app developers to think up all the ideas so they don't have to. This hasn't worked out too well for others in the past. It's just sloppy all around. I want a wearable for my wrist but I don't want a smartphone for my wrist. I want something with specific functions are as efficient as possible for the state-of-the-art. I want was is referred to as an appliance.
So many people here saying that wearable tech is pointless and will fail. You're clearly not in the right generation or target segment to desire this type of product. But I'm sure millions of consumers will want it, even though it might not be in the immediate future, but eventually.
Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.
Do you want a wearable? If so... why?
Only if it is damage proof. I don't generally wear watches unless I go out somewhere because during my normal daily life I tend to get banged around a bit crawling under desks and reaching into tight spaces so I doubt I'd get one.
I see.. Google made a killing with Motorola .. So much so they dumped the company ! ! And all the phones they have made so far... Major block busters .. And the glasses are huge hit ! The author is so in tune with reality ! Oh ya and android! Such original game changing invention ... Shame on apple for knocking it off!
Comments
A few key points the article doesn't address:
1. Any device made by any company other than Google/Motorola is very likely to be iOS compatible as well as Android compatible. Why would Samsung, LG, or Sony make a peripheral that works only with a small percentage of the Android market (phones and tablets running Android 4.3 and up, currently 12.1%), while ignoring the much larger--and likely more profitable--iOS market (iPhone 4S and newer)? Maybe a Sony watch will follow the Android Wear protocol standards and thus integrate directly with the Android OS, but only support a Sony-watch app on iOS, but that might be more than good enough for many users. Just look at FitBit.
2. An iWatch doesn't add to the convergence of the iPhone or iPad. It's not disruptive to an existing market. It's just another peripheral. It doesn't bring much of anything unique to the table. It might be able to collect some biometric data, but a less complex non-interactive ring, necklace, or bracelet could do the same thing, for a lower cost, along with fewer constraints on its fashion design. The second display that an iWatch would provide adds little value to the typical user compared to the iPhone's larger screen. The iPhone already provides vibration and sound. Because of this, I seriously doubt that Apple has any plans to introduce an iWatch. They may well team with major fashion houses to introduce trendy iJewelry. Given how often and quickly fashion changes, annual new models of iJewelry that capture the latest fashion trends (while providing little or no additional functionality over existing models) could prove quite lucrative for Apple.
3. It's generally accepted that a smartphone is hard to read in bright daylight. I suspect that users will be far less forgiving of a smart watch. People are accustomed to watches being easily readable in sunlight. Samsung's very best OLED technology is still far short of that expectation. As a result, I predict that smart watches will be rejected by consumers.
Though I'm certain Apple will not mention the word "watch" at all. It also will not be solely about notifications or doing stuff that your phone already does. Currently all smart watches offer nothing new that a smart phone already does.
The questions aren't, what will the interface be? What will the design be? How will I reply to a message? YAWN.
But...
What are the benefits of a device that is always touching your skin?
How would you get people to wear such a device?
How would it be fashionable?
What relationship can electronics and the human body have together?
If it is about Health... why are Apple doing this? What does this say about Apple for the next 10 years?
Remember, the iPod when first advertised wasn't about its features or its power. It was people listening to music and dancing. That's it.
I recommend watching the "make it wearables" videos on Creators Project... interesting ideas brewing there.
What's the purpose of the round face? They say in the add that square is boring or something and they are bringing the circle back.
The circle serves a purpose for a 12 o'clock dial.
Square is fine.
My bet is Apple goes square for functionality. Everything the have made is square.
P
'Et tu'
Doesn't means thing in French. It should be
'et toi'
What does French have to do with anything?
It's Latin (as someone else posted).
Round is fashionable for watch faces and other jewelry worn on the wrist. I hope that Apple goes with a round face.
When it comes to design, Apple has nothing to worry about.
So true...it reminds me of MS desktop pictures that would ship with Windows. They were sort of good, i.e., bluey and kind of pretty but lacked the taste of Apple. Thinly disguised crap. And when you got into the OS's SW....ugh!
Google can copy the "chamfered" edges, thin fonts and pretty backgrounds, but it's so obvious that it's a copy. A poor copy at that. The watch is too thick! Hello!
So far, Samsung, Sony, HP, MS, Nokia, BB, Google/Moto have produced crappy, Googley/Androidy/Windozy guff!
P.S. Did anyone see my letter to the editor in this month's MacWorld (April 2014) "Photo Power-CLH126?" It's me! I've been "published!" Yepeeeeeee!
We are thinking about "Why would I wear a smartwatch since I do not wear a watch today?", "If I were to wear a smartwatch, what would I want the watch to provide me?", "How would I present information on a small display?"
Here are some people's thoughts:
[£85 for what amounts to a wallpaper]
Great going, Android.
And being only a surrogate device for your phone doesn’t cut it. Half this stuff becomes useless without one.
That’s absolutely horrible for processing and comprehension.
I like this, though. That’s what a watch should do. ‘Course you’d need it to make a noise to get people to notice it.
It’s a watch, for heaven’s sake. Your entire finger covers the screen. Unplayable.
Cute. Again, an actual WATCH feature. Makes a lot of sense.
And Google Jumped The Gun AGAIN like THIS ?
I do! I want something that records biometrics and keeps track of them over a long period of time by periodically syncing with my iPhone which syncs with iCloud. I also want some basic features like telling the time, weather, and seeing the from of certain senders or message types via a vibration but only when a specific accelerometer and gyroscopic motion is observed by the device that tells it I'm lifting my wrist up in a certain way to read it. Most importantly, I want this wrist-worn device to know when it's been clasped to my wrist and when it's been removed so that it can be used with an iOS-based iDevice or Mac to allow for auto-locking/unlocking with the BT connection.
"You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"
The market for a $200 "smart watch" that requires a smartphone to function is very very small.
I'm also interested to see what automotive companies will do with smart watches.
BMW's i3 and Samsung's Galaxy Gear:
I'd like to see a car that will unlock when the BT of the watch gets close enough to initiate a secure handshake, but that also means it should be smart enough to disable this service if you remove the wrist-worn wearable. I can see some of the image's features being included but I think they go overboard with the features and therefore the complexity.
The more I read about this Google watch the more I am impressed with the concept and the more doubts I have about the actual product. The software interface that Google has created is stunning, but it is also the easy part. Touch screen, voice control (mic and speakers), dial illumination, activity monitoring…so many things to be powered. How? The watch is almost presented as a stand-alone device, but I imagine it will work in tandem with a smartphone, probably only ones with the newest version of Android. That might limit its initial usability. Bluetooth - another power requirement. The Motorola mockup watch faces give the impression there may be a real watch movement involved. How can they fit it all in the size of that mockup? Or are those watch faces just digital images? Again - power? And this is all going to come to market this summer? So many questions unanswered. Something just strikes me as wrong. I keep thinking of the old saying, "if its too good to be true…"
Its obvious that Google was working on this during the last year instead of a 64 bit version of Android, that will have to wait till 2015.
But I do think Google is serious about the Android Wear because the Announcement included get a SDK to developers within 6 months.
If Apple is going to announce a watch I think they will need to let developers start working on the SDK at this years WWDC in June, Otherwise the iWatch might not happen this year. The google watch is really about another way to expand "Ok Google Now" as an entry point to their services .
I would be more surprised if Apple did release an iWatch SDK. Google's goal here is advertising so they want HW vendors and 3rd-party app developers to think up all the ideas so they don't have to. This hasn't worked out too well for others in the past. It's just sloppy all around. I want a wearable for my wrist but I don't want a smartphone for my wrist. I want something with specific functions are as efficient as possible for the state-of-the-art. I want was is referred to as an appliance.
They'll go with a straight face.
So many people here saying that wearable tech is pointless and will fail. You're clearly not in the right generation or target segment to desire this type of product. But I'm sure millions of consumers will want it, even though it might not be in the immediate future, but eventually.
Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.
Do you want a wearable? If so... why?
Only if it is damage proof. I don't generally wear watches unless I go out somewhere because during my normal daily life I tend to get banged around a bit crawling under desks and reaching into tight spaces so I doubt I'd get one.
The author is so in tune with reality !
Oh ya and android! Such original game changing invention ... Shame on apple for knocking it off!
Right?