For the health and fitness crowd (runners, cyclists, swimmers, walkers hikers, etc.) who are using a GPS-enabled watch by Garmin, Polar, Timex, uploading the data to computer for later analysis, sharing maps, and so on is fairly important. Uploading the same data to your smartphone isn't really too helpful. Uploading to a tablet app might be a plus. I haven't figured out a way to get my Garmin data into my iPad, for example. So, it'll be interesting to see what Microsoft (and hopefully Apple) put into a smart watch.
If they intend to enter the health/fitness consumer market, they'll need a product that performs at least as well as what is already out there. You can get an entry-level Garmin GPS watch with heart rate monitor strap and a foot pod for around $200, which gives you a fairly accurate data set. Spending more money gets you more features, such as longer battery life, a more accurate altimeter, or better water sealing for use in swimming. Microsoft/Apple/Samsung aren't going to crack this market with a product that does less and doesn't do it as well.
Watches that just supplement a few features in your smartphone (i.e. mail previews, text messages), for another $200 or $300, don't do anything for me. That said, I'm impressed with how well the high end smartphone/map program (take your pick) replaces current OEM or third-party in-car GPS systems. I'm hoping to try out Apple's Carplay in one of the aftermarket products expected out later this year. That initiative gives me some confidence that if Apple does enter the smart watch market they'll have a product with some compelling features.
I mean, if the Gear wasn't successful, why would something largely similar be successful? You have to try something new at this point.
by making it compatible with everything from the start gives you a better chance of people buying it. There's no chance of an iPhone user getting a Samsung product or an android user getting an I watch if they don't communicate well with the primary connector eg the phone. If it's too much of a hassle then people will just not buy it.
by making it compatible with everything from the start gives you a better chance of people buying it. There's no chance of an iPhone user getting a Samsung product or an android user getting an I watch if they don't communicate well with the primary connector eg the phone. If it's too much of a hassle then people will just not buy it.
But people have to want something in the first place, before they consider how well it integrates.
I had one of the Timex Datalink watches. It sync'd by flashing bar codes on the PC screen that were interpreted by the watch. This sometimes worked and sometimes merely induced seizures in the wearer (just kidding). It was totally lame and embarrassingly cheap and dorky, but what young geek doesn't go for crap like that? It was affiliated with Microsoft so it absolutely HAD to be cool.
Fast forward more than a few years and now we have handheld devices that are orders of magnitude more functional, powerful, and useful than both the PC that was flashing the bar codes to the watch, much less the "smart watch" itself. This grand convergence of power, performance, and portability has given us single device that we can carry around with us that supplants the PC and the watch and several other devices, not the least of which is a phone. So why do we want to bring the watch back into the picture? Is it the Dick Tracy thing? Even if we could get all of the capabilities of a smartphone (why do we still call these phones?) into a watch the form factor, ergonomics, and usability would be deal breakers unless we have some game changing improvements in the user interaction model, like holographic projected displays and error free natural language voice control.
Then there's the fiddle factor.
Decent watches today, say a Citizen EcoDrive, are totally hands off and maintenance free. Smartphones? Not so much. Constant updates, constant need for recharging, and endless tweaking and twiddling. Catering to the needs of your smartphone is like housebreaking a new puppy - endlessly. Adding a "smart watch" to the mix that has all of the twiddling downsides of a smartphone makes my life easier? Really? Please explain that to me. You're just making yourself a slave to yet another device, another puppy that needs housebreaking, making your life even more complex, and taking yourself further away from the real world and human interaction.
Tell me again why we want to add yet another peeing puppy to the mix?
About the "compatible with Windows Phone, IOS, and Android" part. You can say the same thing about any bluetooth speaker, headphones, headset, wifi storage device, and so on. Yeah, all of these things are technically compatible with any smartphone device. However, until you identify the specific context that the compatibility relationship entails then all statements about compatibility are totally meaningless or are assuming such a trivial level of interoperability to be very low value. For example, a smart watch could provide a simple wifi or bluetooth connector to replicate text and email messages from any device assuming a little helper app is installed on the device. A richer level of integration that hooked into deeper personal and contextual information that's specific to the device (say an iPhone contact list) would be harder to provide across all platforms. So it really comes down to the quality of the interoperability and compatibility and what compelling value it really adds. Adding low quality and low value compatibility and interoperability across multiple platforms is a pretty easy task, especially for Microsoft. That's their core strength. Apple's core strength is on the other end of the spectrum, single platform but with very high compatibility and interoperability across their own set of devices.
I cant see Microsoft releasing this thing. I don't doubt they've made it, they've been making watches for years. But there calling themselves software again and don't really want to be in hardware. Releasing a watch that even if it does well wont sell that much seems unlikely. The potential market is just to small fir a Microsoft product.
I wanted to leave a sarcastic comment about how it's terrible and awful and an Apple ripoff (even though neither this watch nor the iWatch have been announced), but it looks like I was beat to it.
Also jeez you guys, it's not 2007 anymore, stop with the Ballmer and Office jokes and set your insults for Surface and Xbox.
Comments
Assuming Apple introduces Healthbook in iOS 8... will Microsoft be able to tap into that? Or will it just deliver notifications like a Pebble watch?
Maybe there will be a MFI certification for Healthbook compatible devices...
You mean the same reaction that the 29 other owners give when they have bad calls against THEIR team? Smh :rolleyes:
For the health and fitness crowd (runners, cyclists, swimmers, walkers hikers, etc.) who are using a GPS-enabled watch by Garmin, Polar, Timex, uploading the data to computer for later analysis, sharing maps, and so on is fairly important. Uploading the same data to your smartphone isn't really too helpful. Uploading to a tablet app might be a plus. I haven't figured out a way to get my Garmin data into my iPad, for example. So, it'll be interesting to see what Microsoft (and hopefully Apple) put into a smart watch.
If they intend to enter the health/fitness consumer market, they'll need a product that performs at least as well as what is already out there. You can get an entry-level Garmin GPS watch with heart rate monitor strap and a foot pod for around $200, which gives you a fairly accurate data set. Spending more money gets you more features, such as longer battery life, a more accurate altimeter, or better water sealing for use in swimming. Microsoft/Apple/Samsung aren't going to crack this market with a product that does less and doesn't do it as well.
Watches that just supplement a few features in your smartphone (i.e. mail previews, text messages), for another $200 or $300, don't do anything for me. That said, I'm impressed with how well the high end smartphone/map program (take your pick) replaces current OEM or third-party in-car GPS systems. I'm hoping to try out Apple's Carplay in one of the aftermarket products expected out later this year. That initiative gives me some confidence that if Apple does enter the smart watch market they'll have a product with some compelling features.
by making it compatible with everything from the start gives you a better chance of people buying it. There's no chance of an iPhone user getting a Samsung product or an android user getting an I watch if they don't communicate well with the primary connector eg the phone. If it's too much of a hassle then people will just not buy it.
But people have to want something in the first place, before they consider how well it integrates.
I had one of the Timex Datalink watches. It sync'd by flashing bar codes on the PC screen that were interpreted by the watch. This sometimes worked and sometimes merely induced seizures in the wearer (just kidding). It was totally lame and embarrassingly cheap and dorky, but what young geek doesn't go for crap like that? It was affiliated with Microsoft so it absolutely HAD to be cool.
Fast forward more than a few years and now we have handheld devices that are orders of magnitude more functional, powerful, and useful than both the PC that was flashing the bar codes to the watch, much less the "smart watch" itself. This grand convergence of power, performance, and portability has given us single device that we can carry around with us that supplants the PC and the watch and several other devices, not the least of which is a phone. So why do we want to bring the watch back into the picture? Is it the Dick Tracy thing? Even if we could get all of the capabilities of a smartphone (why do we still call these phones?) into a watch the form factor, ergonomics, and usability would be deal breakers unless we have some game changing improvements in the user interaction model, like holographic projected displays and error free natural language voice control.
Then there's the fiddle factor.
Decent watches today, say a Citizen EcoDrive, are totally hands off and maintenance free. Smartphones? Not so much. Constant updates, constant need for recharging, and endless tweaking and twiddling. Catering to the needs of your smartphone is like housebreaking a new puppy - endlessly. Adding a "smart watch" to the mix that has all of the twiddling downsides of a smartphone makes my life easier? Really? Please explain that to me. You're just making yourself a slave to yet another device, another puppy that needs housebreaking, making your life even more complex, and taking yourself further away from the real world and human interaction.
Tell me again why we want to add yet another peeing puppy to the mix?
but let's give MS a little bit of a break. at least they are not entering the market 3-4 years too late.
I'm imagining a toothpick sized stylus and an origami folding keyboard.
About the "compatible with Windows Phone, IOS, and Android" part. You can say the same thing about any bluetooth speaker, headphones, headset, wifi storage device, and so on. Yeah, all of these things are technically compatible with any smartphone device. However, until you identify the specific context that the compatibility relationship entails then all statements about compatibility are totally meaningless or are assuming such a trivial level of interoperability to be very low value. For example, a smart watch could provide a simple wifi or bluetooth connector to replicate text and email messages from any device assuming a little helper app is installed on the device. A richer level of integration that hooked into deeper personal and contextual information that's specific to the device (say an iPhone contact list) would be harder to provide across all platforms. So it really comes down to the quality of the interoperability and compatibility and what compelling value it really adds. Adding low quality and low value compatibility and interoperability across multiple platforms is a pretty easy task, especially for Microsoft. That's their core strength. Apple's core strength is on the other end of the spectrum, single platform but with very high compatibility and interoperability across their own set of devices.
That’s exactly what they’re going to do, isn’t it?
Not only that, they’ll keep the square tiles on the round watch face.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The first app for it will be...a 5,000 piece jigsaw. ????
Or rename them 'Five Hundred Dollars For An IPhone?'
I wanted to leave a sarcastic comment about how it's terrible and awful and an Apple ripoff (even though neither this watch nor the iWatch have been announced), but it looks like I was beat to it.
Also jeez you guys, it's not 2007 anymore, stop with the Ballmer and Office jokes and set your insults for Surface and Xbox.