Consumers most unsatisfied with poor voice control, bad speakers in current smart watches

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited May 2014
As Apple is thought to be nearing the release of its own so-called "iWatch," early smart watch adopters have grown frustrated with the current generation of wrist-worn devices, according to a new report released Wednesday.




Users most often cited errors with on-screen notifications, issues with the devices' batteries, frustrating voice control solutions, and poor speaker quality, question-and-answer website Fixya noted. The problems were collated from more than 6,000 troubleshooting requests for the Martian Passport, I'm Watch, Samsung Galaxy Gear, Sony SW2, and Pebble.

Users view smart watches primarily as an extension of their smartphone rather than a standalone device, the report concludes. This leads to frustration when even simple operations -- such as receiving notifications -- fail, forcing users to pull out their pocket devices when they may prefer not to.

The devices' displays were found to be a major factor affecting their usefulness. The relatively small size often hampered the utility of on-screen notifications, for instance, while seemingly not helping to improve battery life by a noticeable amount.

The compact displays also deal a blow to interactivity, which some manufacturers have tried to supplement with other input methods including voice control. Those with voice control were panned for its poor quality, while others were dinged for its absence.

iWatch


Apple's forthcoming iWatch is believed to ship with a flexible AMOLED display between 1.3 and 1.5 inches diagonally, which would be nearly identical to the size offered by current smart watches. The company would likely depend on the relative superiority of its Siri voice-controlled digital assistant to differentiate it from existing options.

Additionally, Apple is thought to be aiming for at least one day of battery life by using advanced battery technology and fine-tuning individual components. That is similar to the running time offered by Samsung's offering, for example, but well short of the nearly one week that the monochrome e-paper display-equipped Pebble achieves.

One area in which Apple's offering would differ significantly, however, might be its functionality. Many think that the device will feature a focus on biometrics and personal health tracking, particularly in light of the numerous biomedical sensor experts Apple has hired in recent months.

The iWatch is expected to ship this fall, with some analysts estimating that Apple might sell as many as 10 million units during the holiday season.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    boblehbobleh Posts: 34member
    The 1.3 and 1.5 inches is a bogus. A flexible wrap-around display based on the LuxVue technology is more like it. Remember, Apple enters new product categories by breaking paradigms of current products via a revolutionary technology.
  • Reply 2 of 56
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Of course consumers are unsatisfied with current "smart watches".

     

    Apple hasn't shown the way yet.

     

    Current "smart watches" are just opportunistic plays by the likes of shady companies such as Scamsung to try and beat Apple to the market by releasing and rushing to the market an uninspired and poorly thought out design, basically crap.

     

    It's just like with tablets before the iPad was released. Sure, there were a few tablets that existed before the iPad, but they were all terrible and nobody wanted them. It wasn't until Apple came along and showed everybody how to properly make a tablet, that everybody wanted one all of a sudden.

     

    The same thing will happen with "smart watches". It'll take Apple to come along and release theirs before the buying public realizes how useful and desirable a smart watch could actually be.

     

    There's a word for people who would consider buying a "smart watch" today, and that word is suckers, especially with Apple's watch right around the corner, if we are to believe the rumors.

  • Reply 3 of 56
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    They don't seem to be doing to well in the 'other' problem category!
  • Reply 4 of 56
    chandra69chandra69 Posts: 638member

    I hate the way Samsung implemented the speaker on its Gear watch.  The voice comes out loud.  Hope, Apple addresses this.

    Pranav Mistry could have used his brain a little more.

  • Reply 5 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    bobleh wrote: »
    The 1.3 and 1.5 inches is a bogus. A flexible wrap-around display based on the LuxVue technology is more like it. Remember, Apple enters new product categories by breaking paradigms of current products via a revolutionary technology.

    1) Why do I need a display on the backside of my wrist where I can't see it? Can you imagine a watch with that?

    2) Why do I want a display and the other electronics to be flexible? Can you imagine a watch with that?
  • Reply 6 of 56
    schlackschlack Posts: 719member
    i don't think many mainstream people will be interested in a smart phone extension in the long term.

    i could see the bio medical side of this being a major driver for many, especially as more sensors are crammed into the thing and more 3rd party ecosystems harvest and run analytics on the data
  • Reply 7 of 56
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    Understandable. Even Siri sometimes doesn't understand what I tell it to do. I can imagine how annoying it is to having to take your smartphone out of the pocket after several failed attempts. Voice control needs to get closer to 100% precision, and there's still a long road ahead.
  • Reply 8 of 56
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,192member

    Users will be most unsatisfied with future smart watches when they utilize wireless technology (e.g., Bluetooth) that allows the wearer to be tracked (hacked?) everywhere. This is the downside (downfall?) of iBeacon. It's why every iOS update turns Bluetooth back on.

  • Reply 9 of 56
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

     

    Users will be most unsatisfied with future smart watches when they utilize wireless technology (e.g., Bluetooth) that allows the wearer to be tracked (hacked?) everywhere. This is the downside (downfall?) of iBeacon. It's why every iOS update turns Bluetooth back on.


    That's like saying the downside of a smart watch is that it's strapped to your wrist. The definition of iBeacon is that it "tracks" you and delivers content as you approach an iBeacon with your iPhone. Like it or not, it's just the way it works.

  • Reply 10 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cpsro wrote: »
    Users will be most unsatisfied with future smart watches when they utilize wireless technology (e.g., Bluetooth) that allows the wearer to be tracked (hacked?) everywhere. This is the downside (downfall?) of iBeacon. It's why every iOS update turns Bluetooth back on.

    How is this any different from any or the wireless technologies that is being generated from your devices for years? Even just having a dumb phone means you're being tracked.
  • Reply 11 of 56
    cpsro wrote: »
    Users will be most unsatisfied with future smart watches when they utilize wireless technology (e.g., Bluetooth) that allows the wearer to be tracked (hacked?) everywhere. This is the downside (downfall?) of iBeacon. It's why every iOS update turns Bluetooth back on.

    You're worried about Bluetooth, but not having an actual GPS in the phone that you carry around?
  • Reply 12 of 56
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    I just have to LOL (WRT this story).
  • Reply 13 of 56
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,192member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    How is this any different from any or the wireless technologies that is being generated from your devices for years? Even just having a dumb phone means you're being tracked.

    Precision + Accessibility = Pervasive

  • Reply 14 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cpsro wrote: »
    [SIZE=20px]Precision =>[/SIZE] [SIZE=20px]Pervasive[/SIZE]

    Could you elaborate on why wireless technologies are bad?
  • Reply 15 of 56
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,192member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Could you elaborate on why wireless technologies are bad?

    You know you're just trying to stifle dissent in an area where you stand to personally profit. I know very few people who are not concerned about the amount of their "cyber lives" that is tracked by Google. Now we're talking about technology--that Apple is fervently advancing--which will allow pervasive tracking of our everyday lives. It's already being done to a degree with Wi-Fi. Bluetooth (or some other wireless technology) will add an even more pervasive character. Unlike you apparently, I am being consistent in not wanting my on-line and everyday activities to be tracked.

  • Reply 16 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cpsro wrote: »
    You know you're just trying to stifle dissent in an area where you stand to personally profit. I know very few people who are not concerned about the amount of their "cyber lives" that is tracked by Google. Now we're talking about technology--that Apple is fervently advancing--which will allow pervasive tracking of our everyday lives. It's already being done to a degree with Wi-Fi. Bluetooth (or some other wireless technology) will add an even more pervasive character. Unlike you apparently, I am being consistent in not wanting my on-line and everyday activities to be tracked.

    1) How exactly do I profit from Bluetooth?

    2) How exactly do you not think you're being tracked by any wired or wireless technology that connects to the internet. You're complaining about a single leaf while ignoring the forest.
  • Reply 17 of 56
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,192member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    1) How exactly do I profit from Bluetooth?



    2) How exactly do you not think you're being tracked by any wired or wireless technology that connects to the internet. You're complaining about a single leaf while ignoring the forest.

    1. iBeacon

     

    2. (Bluetooth = Precision) + (iBeacon = widespread accessibility) = Pervasive detailed tracking

     

    If you don't understand that, you don't know tech. Most likely, though, you're just being obtuse.

  • Reply 18 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    cpsro wrote: »
    1. iBeacon

    2. (Bluetooth = Precision) + (iBeacon = widespread accessibility) = Pervasive detailed tracking

    If you don't understand that, you don't know tech.

    1) How do I profit from iBeacons?

    2) How exactly are you tracked better with an iBeacon than simply using a cellphone where your position is constantly monitored and that info can be given to law enforcement, currently without your knowledge, as opposed to an iBeacon which is limited to 10 beacons stored in an app given to iOS, that also needs you to specifically allow?

    3) Sure, you keep telling yourself that.
  • Reply 19 of 56
    chandra69chandra69 Posts: 638member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) How do I profit from iBeacons?



    2) How exactly are you tracked better with an iBeacon than simply using a cellphone where your position is constantly monitored?



    3) Sure, you keep telling yourself that.



    Quote:


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post



    1. iBeacon



    2. (Bluetooth = Precision) + (iBeacon = widespread accessibility) = Pervasive detailed tracking



    If you don't understand that, you don't know tech.

     



     

    Popcorn. Popcorn. Popcorn. Popcorn. 

  • Reply 20 of 56
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    So far, the people using smart watches are early adopters: hobbyists, gadget fans, and hackers. They see smart watches as the hardware it is based on: a computer on a wrist. It's got a touchscreen, a processor, some sensors and wireless. Companies who listen to what these early adopters want are going to hear feedback that steers them away from creating a mainstream product. The average iPhone customer is not waiting breathlessly to put another redundant computing gadget on their wrist.

    To turn smart watches into a mainstream product, it's going to take some imagination and vision. If Apple simply created a miniature iPod Touch with a tiny touchscreen and an App Store, it wouldn't convince mainstream buyers to spend money on it. Whatever Apple comes up with when they enter this market, it should come with a product vision that sells it. Otherwise, Apple is going to have to call it another "hobby."
Sign In or Register to comment.