First off, it won't be a watch. Apple has let the "me too" crowd believe that while they work on an outstanding biomedical device. Like with the iPhone, the first iteration will be more basic then the next and the next. I cannot imagine what the wearable iDevice may be capable when it's as mature as the iPhone is today.
Exactly. This device won't be ready anytime soon. Not that I am an expert but from what I am reading the technology is not yet there. I think Apple is laying the foundations for a whole new platform and 'biometric' eco-system. The potential market is huge. Not so much for teens but for the ageing population, and medical community. The 'iWatch' will not be dependent upon an iPhone in your pocket (what a lame thought) but will obviously work seamlessly within the Apple ecosystem. All the wannabe wearable makers are simply warming up the market for Apple.
The current LCD/LED display technology has too many problems for a watch, and I think the only display technology that can work for a practical watch is eInk which has it's own performance issues too.
LCD, OLED, LED problems:
- The display is too thick. Sapphire may help but not by much.
- You cannot see your watch when wearing polarized glasses or sunglasses. (Try it with an iPhone in landscape)
- The display will have too much glare in sunlight, the backlight cannot overpower daylight.
- The displays always has the backlight blasting behind the polarizing pixel layer, making black annoyingly visible in dark rooms, such as a movie theatre or a bedroom. The solution would be to touch the screen to activate the device, which in my mind, defeats the purpose of wearing a watch.
- The display consumes too much power.
- The display has a limited shapes. Although Motorola produced images of a round watch, it was computer generated and not an actual device. A solution might be to pick up the circuitry to the pixels from the middle axis of the device, that would have to be seen if it can be done.
eInk solves most of the problems because it's visible in daylight, does not use a polarizing layer, and does not continuously produce light. Also it can be manufactured really thin, and it consumes close to nothing in power. But unfortunately, the refresh rate is agonizingly slow, and color is nowhere near appealing.
Many of the problems you mention here have some sort of solution for them.
- Granted LCD displays might be a bit thick but flexible OLED displays are pretty thin.
- The sun glare isn't necessarily a problem with the display but rather the glass. Oled's are pretty good in sunlight.
- Oled displays don't use a backlight.
- When in standby mode there are neat solutions like the Moto X's Active Display. Essentially this allows the display to turn on and off individual pixels (oled displays). So when in standby mode it could only show the clock and everything black would be turned off pixels saving a lot of power. It is rumored that the Moto 360 will use this feature so the watch can be always on (in the very first video interview you can clearly see at some points that the clock is visible without them touching the display).
- By now the Moto 360 has been shown in real life as well, not only computer generated models. Matias Duarte wore one at a designers conference and during the first interview both the interviewer and the interviewee were wearing working models.
One of the latest films show the lead designer also wearing a working model, which was proven when he during the interview got a notification on the watch. In this interview though the display seems to be off in standby which probably means you can choose whether or not you want to be able to always see the clock. http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5661166/motorola-moto-360-report-jim-wicks-video
So the Moto 360 definitely isn't just a concept, it's due for release this summer.
Many of the problems you mention here have some sort of solution for them.
- Granted LCD displays might be a bit thick but flexible OLED displays are pretty thin.
- The sun glare isn't necessarily a problem with the display but rather the glass. Oled's are pretty good in sunlight.
- Oled displays don't use a backlight.
- When in standby mode there are neat solutions like the Moto X's Active Display. Essentially this allows the display to turn on and off individual pixels (oled displays). So when in standby mode it could only show the clock and everything black would be turned off pixels saving a lot of power. It is rumored that the Moto 360 will use this feature so the watch can be always on.
- By now the Moto 360 has been shown in real life as well, not only computer generated models. Matias Duarte wore one at a designers conference and during the first interview both the interviewer and the interviewee were wearing working models.
So the Moto 360 definitely isn't just a concept, it's due for release this summer.
Glare is a glass or any surface issue, the real problem lies in light emitting vs light reflective display technologies. LED OLED and LCD are all light-emiiting, which means if you turn off the backlight/light source you would barely be able to see an image, because the light source has to be brighter than the ambient light. eInk on the other hand, is light-reflective, meaning that the ambient light or daylight is what makes it possible for you to see an image, just like paper wether you put glass on top of it or not. You can still see your mechanical watch in daylight since the content behind the glass is light-reflective.
Motorola's watch still consumes lots of power, and as I said, having to always press a button to see your display defeats the purpose of a watch, and that is just my opinion. The watch is also very thick, obviously due to the display and battery. With eInk the watch could've been half the thickness. I'm not promoting eInk, I'm only pointing out why I feel the technology is not there yet for an iWatch.
Glare is a glass or any surface issue, the real problem lies in light emitting vs light reflective display technologies. LED OLED and LCD are all light-emiiting, which means if you turn off the backlight/light source you would barely be able to see an image, because the light source has to be brighter than the ambient light. eInk on the other hand, is light-reflective, meaning that the ambient light or daylight is what makes it possible for you to see an image, just like paper wether you put glass on top of it or not. You can still see your mechanical watch in daylight since the content behind the glass is light-reflective.
Motorola's watch still consumes lots of power, and as I said, having to always press a button to see your display defeats the purpose of a watch, and that is just my opinion. The watch is also very thick, obviously due to the display and battery. With eInk the watch could've been half the thickness. I'm not promoting eInk, I'm only pointing out why I feel the technology is not there yet for an iWatch.
The thing is for the display there are possible solutions (like Motorola's Active Display) to manage that. The battery on the other hand is another problem, which doesn't have obvious solutions. Therefor I still believe that the biggest hurdle is the battery and not the display.
P.S. if you turn off the light source on OLED displays you wouldn't see anything. The LED's are the lightsource. Therefor Motorola's Active Display should be able to save a lot of power here (by turning off unnecessary led's).
Beats is working on a new wearable kevlar vest with a "iBustaCap" sensor to detect when you have been shot, and automatically call 911 - if you have Location Services turned on. They are also working on a new crowd sourcing app called "Drive-By"
People had been complaining that when they were shot they had trouble getting help from Siri.
"I have found fifteen hospitals close to you" is not what you want to hear. Of course with Google voice search you will get a pop-up ad from the hospital offering "Discount Bullet Removal While You Wait". And also a Groupon for 9mm ammo.
When did the "wearables market" become "hotly contested"?
A lot of companies are jumping in the ring, which would make it hotly contested. What it absolutely is not, is popular among consumers. Which makes me wonder, why bother? My thoughts... with all the rumors of Apple entering the market, most of these companies believe that after Apple does release something, the market will explode and they want to be in on it from the get go, rather than be left behind like they were in the mobile market. Personally, all this hubbub about Apple NEEDING to enter the wearable market is just stupid. All they really NEED to do is make sure that these devices are compatible with their platform.
It could simply be that they hired all these people to help build their rumored “Healthbook” platform. All of these people have deep industry contacts and knowledge and could very well be an “inside” into the industry to develop working relationships with other researchers and manufacturers.
Even if all Apple did was just release a new iOS based, health-related platform it could spark tremendous growth in the sensor/wearables market. Having a core team such as this, could guarantee that iOS remains a significant part of that market and doesn’t get left behind.
Apple doesn’t have to make and sell all these devices themselves. What they really need to do is develop and create a platform that industries want to support – and absolutely need to support.
However, if that means releasing a “wearable” to show the rest of the industry that people are interested when it’s done right, then that’s what they’ll do.
The thing is for the display there are possible solutions (like Motorola's Active Display) to manage that. The battery on the other hand is another problem, which doesn't have obvious solutions. Therefor I still believe that the biggest hurdle is the battery and not the display.
P.S. if you turn off the light source on OLED displays you wouldn't see anything. The LED's are the lightsource. Therefor Motorola's Active Display should be able to save a lot of power here (by turning off unnecessary led's).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb
Apple bought luxvue to solve the display problem. They've got very low power micro LEDs
Still useless on a sunny day. The problem is all those mentioned technologies are light emitting, therefore the little OLEDs or LEDs have to try and outshine the ambient light of daylight, which is impossible on a sunny day. The solution to this problem is a light reflective display, like Kindle's Paperwhite, only faster and in bright color.
Personally I think that the display technology is ready for it, what isn't ready is the battery technology.
The current LCD/LED display technology has too many problems for a watch, and I think the only display technology that can work for a practical watch is eInk which has it's own performance issues too.
LCD, OLED, LED problems:
- The display is too thick. Sapphire may help but not by much.
- You cannot see your watch when wearing polarized glasses or sunglasses. (Try it with an iPhone in landscape)
- The display will have too much glare in sunlight, the backlight cannot overpower daylight.
- The displays always has the backlight blasting behind the polarizing pixel layer, making black annoyingly visible in dark rooms, such as a movie theatre or a bedroom. The solution would be to touch the screen to activate the device, which in my mind, defeats the purpose of wearing a watch.
- The display consumes too much power.
- The display has a limited shapes. Although Motorola produced images of a round watch, it was computer generated and not an actual device. A solution might be to pick up the circuitry to the pixels from the middle axis of the device, that would have to be seen if it can be done.
eInk solves most of the problems because it's visible in daylight, does not use a polarizing layer, and does not continuously produce light. Also it can be manufactured really thin, and it consumes close to nothing in power. But unfortunately, the refresh rate is agonizingly slow, and color is nowhere near appealing.
All compelling reasons why Apple will not release an iWatch, at least for the foreseeable future.
The acquisitions definitely prove that Apple is working on health tracking devices. But am I the only one who thinks that most these acquisitions are a little on the late side for a 2014 product release (and certainly when you take into account the time it takes to get FDA clearance which is at least 4 months even for the most basic functions, let alone things like blood analysis ). I personally have the impression that most of these acquisitions/hires are for a product for next year or so, which could be either an updated iWatch (with this years iWatch having somewhat more basic health related functions) or other wearable.
Just an impression of course...
I think that's a distinct possibility but we also don't know when they started looking into this or to the extent they wish to make their entry into this market. Also, does the FDA allow for their testing and approvals to be kept secret until such time as the company wants the info released, providing it's before the device goes on sale, like with the FCC?
I'd think that HealthBook (and accompanying APIs and frameworks) would come first or at the same time as any health-focused HW from Apple. Not unlike how PassBook has come before any Apple payment system that is rumoured to be in the works.
Exactly. This device won't be ready anytime soon. Not that I am an expert but from what I am reading the technology is not yet there. I think Apple is laying the foundations for a whole new platform and 'biometric' eco-system.
I agree, however I expect Apple to build itup over time, but starting with something this year... Kinda like the iPad 1... people loved it, but the iPad has advanced a long way since that first one they shipped.
The problem with this is that Apple will come out with a really cool innovative elegant device. And it will be expensive to create.
In the case of the iPhone they has time to charge $800 for the first model and come down in price only gradually while competitors played catch up.
But that was the phone. Now with a watch competitors are going to copy Apple's beautiful creation in a very short amount of time. And they will offer their versions at a lower price immediately.
This is why priority 1 for Apple is non copiability.
What could be hard for others to emulate:
1) brand status/cool factor. If you sell a watch with a Rolex type aura
Make the war about style. Android is not about chic elegance.
2) really high end tech features that are difficult to pull off well. Like the fingerprint reader but also *medical tech*
3) cool expensive challenging and/or rare materials that are hard to integrate for various reasons. Like sapphirre.
You forgot about the real number 1 way to make it hard for others to copy
1) make it only work on iOS devices with no SDK for developers. Apple's ecosystem is arguably the most valuable component of any Apple wearable.
Still useless on a sunny day. The problem is all those mentioned technologies are light emitting, therefore the little OLEDs or LEDs have to try and outshine the ambient light of daylight, which is impossible on a sunny day. The solution to this problem is a light reflective display, like Kindle's Paperwhite, only faster and in bright color.
That already exists on digital watches: it's called the LCD.
<*Yawn!*> Biometrics… fashion… trying desperately to be interested but failing...
Is there really a market for this stuff outside gym freaks and hypochondriacs?
I think that's what Apple's trying to do here. I could easily see anyone over 50 being interested in a purely health-related wearable (more because they have to than they want to). But there are no sexy apps for this tech yet and I doubt there will be anytime soon. Biometrics for health are really all about health metrics over time. Once you can see a bad health pattern over 3-5 years, you can take action to correct it and that is really cool.
I can't really conceive of anything that would interest me less. What's next—Apple-brand catheters? Adult diapers? I think this would absolutely destroy Apple's brand appeal—and I speak as an old man who's not in great shape myself.
How can Apple launch a Healthbook app at WWDC in June without an accompanying device to use it with? It's got to be either both or nothing.
I thought that, too. But another possibility is that Apple is providing an amalgamation of the thousands of health apps already on the App Store, a bit like Passbook. They provide the software, including for third-party accessories, whilst others provide the hardware. However, in view of Nike's recent shutting up of shop of their hardware department, and also the M7 chip, as well as recent hirings, I'm not so sure.
if this is just in the research stage then no way will we see any products this year. Curious to know how you would define the "Apple simplicity test" in the context of what these people may be working on.
Something so elegantly designed and implemented that the value of the thing is self-evident.
Comments
First off, it won't be a watch. Apple has let the "me too" crowd believe that while they work on an outstanding biomedical device. Like with the iPhone, the first iteration will be more basic then the next and the next. I cannot imagine what the wearable iDevice may be capable when it's as mature as the iPhone is today.
Exactly. This device won't be ready anytime soon. Not that I am an expert but from what I am reading the technology is not yet there. I think Apple is laying the foundations for a whole new platform and 'biometric' eco-system. The potential market is huge. Not so much for teens but for the ageing population, and medical community. The 'iWatch' will not be dependent upon an iPhone in your pocket (what a lame thought) but will obviously work seamlessly within the Apple ecosystem. All the wannabe wearable makers are simply warming up the market for Apple.
The current LCD/LED display technology has too many problems for a watch, and I think the only display technology that can work for a practical watch is eInk which has it's own performance issues too.
LCD, OLED, LED problems:
- The display is too thick. Sapphire may help but not by much.
- You cannot see your watch when wearing polarized glasses or sunglasses. (Try it with an iPhone in landscape)
- The display will have too much glare in sunlight, the backlight cannot overpower daylight.
- The displays always has the backlight blasting behind the polarizing pixel layer, making black annoyingly visible in dark rooms, such as a movie theatre or a bedroom. The solution would be to touch the screen to activate the device, which in my mind, defeats the purpose of wearing a watch.
- The display consumes too much power.
- The display has a limited shapes. Although Motorola produced images of a round watch, it was computer generated and not an actual device. A solution might be to pick up the circuitry to the pixels from the middle axis of the device, that would have to be seen if it can be done.
eInk solves most of the problems because it's visible in daylight, does not use a polarizing layer, and does not continuously produce light. Also it can be manufactured really thin, and it consumes close to nothing in power. But unfortunately, the refresh rate is agonizingly slow, and color is nowhere near appealing.
Many of the problems you mention here have some sort of solution for them.
- Granted LCD displays might be a bit thick but flexible OLED displays are pretty thin.
- The sun glare isn't necessarily a problem with the display but rather the glass. Oled's are pretty good in sunlight.
- Oled displays don't use a backlight.
- When in standby mode there are neat solutions like the Moto X's Active Display. Essentially this allows the display to turn on and off individual pixels (oled displays). So when in standby mode it could only show the clock and everything black would be turned off pixels saving a lot of power. It is rumored that the Moto 360 will use this feature so the watch can be always on (in the very first video interview you can clearly see at some points that the clock is visible without them touching the display).
- By now the Moto 360 has been shown in real life as well, not only computer generated models. Matias Duarte wore one at a designers conference and during the first interview both the interviewer and the interviewee were wearing working models.
One of the latest films show the lead designer also wearing a working model, which was proven when he during the interview got a notification on the watch. In this interview though the display seems to be off in standby which probably means you can choose whether or not you want to be able to always see the clock. http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5661166/motorola-moto-360-report-jim-wicks-video
So the Moto 360 definitely isn't just a concept, it's due for release this summer.
Many of the problems you mention here have some sort of solution for them.
- Granted LCD displays might be a bit thick but flexible OLED displays are pretty thin.
- The sun glare isn't necessarily a problem with the display but rather the glass. Oled's are pretty good in sunlight.
- Oled displays don't use a backlight.
- When in standby mode there are neat solutions like the Moto X's Active Display. Essentially this allows the display to turn on and off individual pixels (oled displays). So when in standby mode it could only show the clock and everything black would be turned off pixels saving a lot of power. It is rumored that the Moto 360 will use this feature so the watch can be always on.
- By now the Moto 360 has been shown in real life as well, not only computer generated models. Matias Duarte wore one at a designers conference and during the first interview both the interviewer and the interviewee were wearing working models.
One of the latest films show the lead designer also wearing a working model, which was proven when he during the interview got a notification on the watch. http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5661166/motorola-moto-360-report-jim-wicks-video
So the Moto 360 definitely isn't just a concept, it's due for release this summer.
Glare is a glass or any surface issue, the real problem lies in light emitting vs light reflective display technologies. LED OLED and LCD are all light-emiiting, which means if you turn off the backlight/light source you would barely be able to see an image, because the light source has to be brighter than the ambient light. eInk on the other hand, is light-reflective, meaning that the ambient light or daylight is what makes it possible for you to see an image, just like paper wether you put glass on top of it or not. You can still see your mechanical watch in daylight since the content behind the glass is light-reflective.
Motorola's watch still consumes lots of power, and as I said, having to always press a button to see your display defeats the purpose of a watch, and that is just my opinion. The watch is also very thick, obviously due to the display and battery. With eInk the watch could've been half the thickness. I'm not promoting eInk, I'm only pointing out why I feel the technology is not there yet for an iWatch.
Glare is a glass or any surface issue, the real problem lies in light emitting vs light reflective display technologies. LED OLED and LCD are all light-emiiting, which means if you turn off the backlight/light source you would barely be able to see an image, because the light source has to be brighter than the ambient light. eInk on the other hand, is light-reflective, meaning that the ambient light or daylight is what makes it possible for you to see an image, just like paper wether you put glass on top of it or not. You can still see your mechanical watch in daylight since the content behind the glass is light-reflective.
Motorola's watch still consumes lots of power, and as I said, having to always press a button to see your display defeats the purpose of a watch, and that is just my opinion. The watch is also very thick, obviously due to the display and battery. With eInk the watch could've been half the thickness. I'm not promoting eInk, I'm only pointing out why I feel the technology is not there yet for an iWatch.
The thing is for the display there are possible solutions (like Motorola's Active Display) to manage that. The battery on the other hand is another problem, which doesn't have obvious solutions. Therefor I still believe that the biggest hurdle is the battery and not the display.
P.S. if you turn off the light source on OLED displays you wouldn't see anything. The LED's are the lightsource. Therefor Motorola's Active Display should be able to save a lot of power here (by turning off unnecessary led's).
Beats is working on a new wearable kevlar vest with a "iBustaCap" sensor to detect when you have been shot, and automatically call 911 - if you have Location Services turned on. They are also working on a new crowd sourcing app called "Drive-By"
People had been complaining that when they were shot they had trouble getting help from Siri.
"I have found fifteen hospitals close to you" is not what you want to hear. Of course with Google voice search you will get a pop-up ad from the hospital offering "Discount Bullet Removal While You Wait". And also a Groupon for 9mm ammo.
When did the "wearables market" become "hotly contested"?
A lot of companies are jumping in the ring, which would make it hotly contested. What it absolutely is not, is popular among consumers. Which makes me wonder, why bother? My thoughts... with all the rumors of Apple entering the market, most of these companies believe that after Apple does release something, the market will explode and they want to be in on it from the get go, rather than be left behind like they were in the mobile market. Personally, all this hubbub about Apple NEEDING to enter the wearable market is just stupid. All they really NEED to do is make sure that these devices are compatible with their platform.
It could simply be that they hired all these people to help build their rumored “Healthbook” platform. All of these people have deep industry contacts and knowledge and could very well be an “inside” into the industry to develop working relationships with other researchers and manufacturers.
Even if all Apple did was just release a new iOS based, health-related platform it could spark tremendous growth in the sensor/wearables market. Having a core team such as this, could guarantee that iOS remains a significant part of that market and doesn’t get left behind.
Apple doesn’t have to make and sell all these devices themselves. What they really need to do is develop and create a platform that industries want to support – and absolutely need to support.
However, if that means releasing a “wearable” to show the rest of the industry that people are interested when it’s done right, then that’s what they’ll do.
The thing is for the display there are possible solutions (like Motorola's Active Display) to manage that. The battery on the other hand is another problem, which doesn't have obvious solutions. Therefor I still believe that the biggest hurdle is the battery and not the display.
P.S. if you turn off the light source on OLED displays you wouldn't see anything. The LED's are the lightsource. Therefor Motorola's Active Display should be able to save a lot of power here (by turning off unnecessary led's).
Apple bought luxvue to solve the display problem. They've got very low power micro LEDs
Still useless on a sunny day. The problem is all those mentioned technologies are light emitting, therefore the little OLEDs or LEDs have to try and outshine the ambient light of daylight, which is impossible on a sunny day. The solution to this problem is a light reflective display, like Kindle's Paperwhite, only faster and in bright color.
Galaxy Gear will look like strapping a dog turd onto your wrist compared to what Apple will roll out.
lol!
Agree with you -- Apple is in it to win it by delighting the customer.
But I do think Apple's brand works better for wearables. Apple, stylish, elegant, Rolex, Ferrari, cool.
Android Galaxy Gear, sci fi green alien trash can, gearhead, tech toys for nerds (I'm a nerd, full disclosure).
Personally I think that the display technology is ready for it, what isn't ready is the battery technology.
The current LCD/LED display technology has too many problems for a watch, and I think the only display technology that can work for a practical watch is eInk which has it's own performance issues too.
LCD, OLED, LED problems:
- The display is too thick. Sapphire may help but not by much.
- You cannot see your watch when wearing polarized glasses or sunglasses. (Try it with an iPhone in landscape)
- The display will have too much glare in sunlight, the backlight cannot overpower daylight.
- The displays always has the backlight blasting behind the polarizing pixel layer, making black annoyingly visible in dark rooms, such as a movie theatre or a bedroom. The solution would be to touch the screen to activate the device, which in my mind, defeats the purpose of wearing a watch.
- The display consumes too much power.
- The display has a limited shapes. Although Motorola produced images of a round watch, it was computer generated and not an actual device. A solution might be to pick up the circuitry to the pixels from the middle axis of the device, that would have to be seen if it can be done.
eInk solves most of the problems because it's visible in daylight, does not use a polarizing layer, and does not continuously produce light. Also it can be manufactured really thin, and it consumes close to nothing in power. But unfortunately, the refresh rate is agonizingly slow, and color is nowhere near appealing.
All compelling reasons why Apple will not release an iWatch, at least for the foreseeable future.
I think that's a distinct possibility but we also don't know when they started looking into this or to the extent they wish to make their entry into this market. Also, does the FDA allow for their testing and approvals to be kept secret until such time as the company wants the info released, providing it's before the device goes on sale, like with the FCC?
I'd think that HealthBook (and accompanying APIs and frameworks) would come first or at the same time as any health-focused HW from Apple. Not unlike how PassBook has come before any Apple payment system that is rumoured to be in the works.
I agree, however I expect Apple to build itup over time, but starting with something this year... Kinda like the iPad 1... people loved it, but the iPad has advanced a long way since that first one they shipped.
The problem with this is that Apple will come out with a really cool innovative elegant device. And it will be expensive to create.
In the case of the iPhone they has time to charge $800 for the first model and come down in price only gradually while competitors played catch up.
But that was the phone. Now with a watch competitors are going to copy Apple's beautiful creation in a very short amount of time. And they will offer their versions at a lower price immediately.
This is why priority 1 for Apple is non copiability.
What could be hard for others to emulate:
1) brand status/cool factor. If you sell a watch with a Rolex type aura
Make the war about style. Android is not about chic elegance.
2) really high end tech features that are difficult to pull off well. Like the fingerprint reader but also *medical tech*
3) cool expensive challenging and/or rare materials that are hard to integrate for various reasons. Like sapphirre.
You forgot about the real number 1 way to make it hard for others to copy
1) make it only work on iOS devices with no SDK for developers. Apple's ecosystem is arguably the most valuable component of any Apple wearable.
<*Yawn!*> Biometrics… fashion… trying desperately to be interested but failing...
Is there really a market for this stuff outside gym freaks and hypochondriacs?
That already exists on digital watches: it's called the LCD.
That already exists on digital watches: it's called the LCD.
Color LCDs are generally light emitting, not good in sunlight.
I think that's what Apple's trying to do here. I could easily see anyone over 50 being interested in a purely health-related wearable (more because they have to than they want to). But there are no sexy apps for this tech yet and I doubt there will be anytime soon. Biometrics for health are really all about health metrics over time. Once you can see a bad health pattern over 3-5 years, you can take action to correct it and that is really cool.
I thought that, too. But another possibility is that Apple is providing an amalgamation of the thousands of health apps already on the App Store, a bit like Passbook. They provide the software, including for third-party accessories, whilst others provide the hardware. However, in view of Nike's recent shutting up of shop of their hardware department, and also the M7 chip, as well as recent hirings, I'm not so sure.
if this is just in the research stage then no way will we see any products this year. Curious to know how you would define the "Apple simplicity test" in the context of what these people may be working on.
Something so elegantly designed and implemented that the value of the thing is self-evident.