God I can't wait until this smartwatch craze phase ends. It seems to me this is a solution in search of a problem. Probably one of the reasons we haven't seen anything from Apple yet.
Agreed. It reminds me (just a little, not a lot) of those keyboards that are projected onto surfaces. So...be sure to remember to charge your phone and your watch as well... No thanks. Tim Cook even commented on the fact that kids aren't really wearing watches these days. I'll believe it when I see it, but I just don't see the utility. The problem it "solves" is me glancing over at my phone which is on my desk while at work, or taking about three seconds to pull it from my pocket. At $300 (Samsung, not the hypothetical Apple device) and mental focus to keep it charged...how does this "solve" for a three second problem.
I think maybe a bio band of some kind for less than a hundred might serve a niche market...but I can't see anybody but tech geeks who love their gadgets paying over $200 for this kind of thing. I'd love to think the Apple watch is just a big red herring unless Apple can figure out how to get several days battery life.
The fitness world is where a smartwatch will be most useful.
Today's offerings are clunky and too complicated to operate. Believe me I've had experience with them (Suunto, Timex)
Today's smartwatches on the other hand, are just a smartphone or its projection shrunk down to your wrist.
What problem can an iWatch solve?
Answer:The problem of using your iPhone when training. Not the most elegant way to train today.
If an iWatch can tell me the time, maybe have some stopwatch capability (start/stop/lap), maybe GPS for it to record positions when not carrying an iPhone and a sensor to record pulse (equivalent to heartbeat) and if user decides during training, to pair with an iPhone, then it becomes the ultimate training companion. As a standalone device, when arriving at a WiFi area it can automatically upload the results to the appropriate site and the user can review later.
Forget about the Red Bull drinking kids. This may be targeted towards aging baby boomers who refuse to age.
Even if it only augments traditional tethered charging it might extend useful life longer than a day or more. Sammy's watch is what, 10 hours of use IIRC?
The fitness world is where a smartwatch will be most useful.
Today's offerings are clunky and too complicated to operate. Believe me I've had experience with them (Suunto, Timex)
Today's smartwatches on the other hand, are just a smartphone or its projection shrunk down to your wrist.
What problem can an iWatch solve?
Answer:The problem of using your iPhone when training. Not the most elegant way to train today.
If an iWatch can tell me the time, maybe have some stopwatch capability (start/stop/lap), maybe GPS for it to record positions when not carrying an iPhone and a sensor to record pulse (equivalent to heartbeat) and if user decides during training, to pair with an iPhone, then it becomes the ultimate training companion. As a standalone device, when arriving at a WiFi area it can automatically upload the results to the appropriate site and the user can review later.
Forget about the Red Bull drinking kids. This may be targeted towards aging baby boomers who refuse to age.
My issue with the whole sports watch thing is...why the touch screen?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a device that counts my reps, takes my blood pressure, tells me my bmi and my heart rate...but some of that is sci fi for right now. What's more, most people I know who are serious athletes (and would therefore enjoy spending over $200 for equipment/tech) would have no need for these measurements. Progress is usually measured in weight lifted, pounds dropped, bmi, number of reps, none of which can be reliably measured by a watch without direct input from your finger, and the screen would be too small to be compelling to me. I want to think that technology will provide something "cool" down the road, and I don't think I necessarily have thought through this more than a company like Apple, but I've been a serious, competitive athlete for years and I simply don't see the utility. Really, if it can measure anything useful about me, it hardly needs a touch screen. I have no doubt that smart sports bands could provide useful information and will get better, but my question is...what is the screen for? I'm not inputting information while lifting or running...god no. And when I'm between sets or between intervals...I'm certainly not wanting to spend my time touching a screen because I'm focused on my breathing. If it is to do it's job, it needs to do it without my input. If I'm done with my workout and ready to use "it," then "it" might as well be my smartphone. The only time I'll use a touch screen is before or after my workout. If it's before, I can set up parameters on my phone that has a more useable screen. If it's after...same thing. A band that communicates with the phone would be nice...but the idea that it will have a screen...what on earth for? ( I could be wrong, but I'm just indicating that for the life of me I can't come with any problem having a big screen on my wrist during a work out solves).
Did Apple ever say they were working on an upcoming smartwatch much less "longer than these others"? Perhaps they have and it went unnoticed.
Of course the rumors could be true about an Apple smartwatch but they're just that. rumors and vaporware at this point as are possible Google and MS versions. The real ones so far include Pebble, Galaxy Gear, and Toq.
The real info may only come out if there's a lawsuit (which requires development history to be revealed), as with the iPhone.
My issue with the whole sports watch thing is...why the touch screen?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a device that counts my reps, takes my blood pressure, tells me my bmi and my heart rate...but some of that is sci fi for right now. What's more, most people I know who are serious athletes (and would therefore enjoy spending over $200 for equipment/tech) would have no need for these measurements. Progress is usually measured in weight lifted, pounds dropped, bmi, number of reps, none of which can be reliably measured by a watch without direct input from your finger, and the screen would be too small to be compelling to me. I want to think that technology will provide something "cool" down the road, and I don't think I necessarily have thought through this more than a company like Apple, but I've been a serious, competitive athlete for years and I simply don't see the utility. Really, if it can measure anything useful about me, it hardly needs a touch screen. I have no doubt that smart sports bands could provide useful information and will get better, but my question is...what is the screen for? I'm not inputting information while lifting or running...god no. And when I'm between sets or between intervals...I'm certainly not wanting to spend my time touching a screen because I'm focused on my breathing. If it is to do it's job, it needs to do it without my input. If I'm done with my workout and ready to use "it," then "it" might as well be my smartphone. The only time I'll use a touch screen is before or after my workout. If it's before, I can set up parameters on my phone that has a more useable screen. If it's after...same thing. A band that communicates with the phone would be nice...but the idea that it will have a screen...what on earth for? ( I could be wrong, but I'm just indicating that for the life of me I can't come with any problem having a big screen on my wrist during a work out solves).
Think Nike fuel band design, paired with Strava or Map My Run. Every km or mi the watch gives you your pace. Instant and important feedback from the app to your watch/band. Now think of that band having a pulse reading sensor. This info is immediately paired with your workout. See all your stats at the end. During a workout you get important feedback on whether your are exerting yourself too much expressed as a percentage of your max heart rate.
Something along those lines. No bulky screen necessary.
Comments
God I can't wait until this smartwatch craze phase ends. It seems to me this is a solution in search of a problem. Probably one of the reasons we haven't seen anything from Apple yet.
Agreed. It reminds me (just a little, not a lot) of those keyboards that are projected onto surfaces. So...be sure to remember to charge your phone and your watch as well... No thanks. Tim Cook even commented on the fact that kids aren't really wearing watches these days. I'll believe it when I see it, but I just don't see the utility. The problem it "solves" is me glancing over at my phone which is on my desk while at work, or taking about three seconds to pull it from my pocket. At $300 (Samsung, not the hypothetical Apple device) and mental focus to keep it charged...how does this "solve" for a three second problem.
I think maybe a bio band of some kind for less than a hundred might serve a niche market...but I can't see anybody but tech geeks who love their gadgets paying over $200 for this kind of thing. I'd love to think the Apple watch is just a big red herring unless Apple can figure out how to get several days battery life.
I don't see kinetic energy as being an unreasonable expectation for helping to keep a smartwatch charged.
The fitness world is where a smartwatch will be most useful.
Today's offerings are clunky and too complicated to operate. Believe me I've had experience with them (Suunto, Timex)
Today's smartwatches on the other hand, are just a smartphone or its projection shrunk down to your wrist.
What problem can an iWatch solve?
Answer:The problem of using your iPhone when training. Not the most elegant way to train today.
If an iWatch can tell me the time, maybe have some stopwatch capability (start/stop/lap), maybe GPS for it to record positions when not carrying an iPhone and a sensor to record pulse (equivalent to heartbeat) and if user decides during training, to pair with an iPhone, then it becomes the ultimate training companion. As a standalone device, when arriving at a WiFi area it can automatically upload the results to the appropriate site and the user can review later.
Forget about the Red Bull drinking kids. This may be targeted towards aging baby boomers who refuse to age.
I don't see kinetic energy as being an unreasonable expectation for helping to keep a smartwatch charged.
Now that would be "woah" inducing.
Even if it only augments traditional tethered charging it might extend useful life longer than a day or more. Sammy's watch is what, 10 hours of use IIRC?
The fitness world is where a smartwatch will be most useful.
Today's offerings are clunky and too complicated to operate. Believe me I've had experience with them (Suunto, Timex)
Today's smartwatches on the other hand, are just a smartphone or its projection shrunk down to your wrist.
What problem can an iWatch solve?
Answer:The problem of using your iPhone when training. Not the most elegant way to train today.
If an iWatch can tell me the time, maybe have some stopwatch capability (start/stop/lap), maybe GPS for it to record positions when not carrying an iPhone and a sensor to record pulse (equivalent to heartbeat) and if user decides during training, to pair with an iPhone, then it becomes the ultimate training companion. As a standalone device, when arriving at a WiFi area it can automatically upload the results to the appropriate site and the user can review later.
Forget about the Red Bull drinking kids. This may be targeted towards aging baby boomers who refuse to age.
My issue with the whole sports watch thing is...why the touch screen?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a device that counts my reps, takes my blood pressure, tells me my bmi and my heart rate...but some of that is sci fi for right now. What's more, most people I know who are serious athletes (and would therefore enjoy spending over $200 for equipment/tech) would have no need for these measurements. Progress is usually measured in weight lifted, pounds dropped, bmi, number of reps, none of which can be reliably measured by a watch without direct input from your finger, and the screen would be too small to be compelling to me. I want to think that technology will provide something "cool" down the road, and I don't think I necessarily have thought through this more than a company like Apple, but I've been a serious, competitive athlete for years and I simply don't see the utility. Really, if it can measure anything useful about me, it hardly needs a touch screen. I have no doubt that smart sports bands could provide useful information and will get better, but my question is...what is the screen for? I'm not inputting information while lifting or running...god no. And when I'm between sets or between intervals...I'm certainly not wanting to spend my time touching a screen because I'm focused on my breathing. If it is to do it's job, it needs to do it without my input. If I'm done with my workout and ready to use "it," then "it" might as well be my smartphone. The only time I'll use a touch screen is before or after my workout. If it's before, I can set up parameters on my phone that has a more useable screen. If it's after...same thing. A band that communicates with the phone would be nice...but the idea that it will have a screen...what on earth for? ( I could be wrong, but I'm just indicating that for the life of me I can't come with any problem having a big screen on my wrist during a work out solves).
Did Apple ever say they were working on an upcoming smartwatch much less "longer than these others"? Perhaps they have and it went unnoticed.
Of course the rumors could be true about an Apple smartwatch but they're just that. rumors and vaporware at this point as are possible Google and MS versions. The real ones so far include Pebble, Galaxy Gear, and Toq.
The real info may only come out if there's a lawsuit (which requires development history to be revealed), as with the iPhone.
My issue with the whole sports watch thing is...why the touch screen?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love a device that counts my reps, takes my blood pressure, tells me my bmi and my heart rate...but some of that is sci fi for right now. What's more, most people I know who are serious athletes (and would therefore enjoy spending over $200 for equipment/tech) would have no need for these measurements. Progress is usually measured in weight lifted, pounds dropped, bmi, number of reps, none of which can be reliably measured by a watch without direct input from your finger, and the screen would be too small to be compelling to me. I want to think that technology will provide something "cool" down the road, and I don't think I necessarily have thought through this more than a company like Apple, but I've been a serious, competitive athlete for years and I simply don't see the utility. Really, if it can measure anything useful about me, it hardly needs a touch screen. I have no doubt that smart sports bands could provide useful information and will get better, but my question is...what is the screen for? I'm not inputting information while lifting or running...god no. And when I'm between sets or between intervals...I'm certainly not wanting to spend my time touching a screen because I'm focused on my breathing. If it is to do it's job, it needs to do it without my input. If I'm done with my workout and ready to use "it," then "it" might as well be my smartphone. The only time I'll use a touch screen is before or after my workout. If it's before, I can set up parameters on my phone that has a more useable screen. If it's after...same thing. A band that communicates with the phone would be nice...but the idea that it will have a screen...what on earth for? ( I could be wrong, but I'm just indicating that for the life of me I can't come with any problem having a big screen on my wrist during a work out solves).
Think Nike fuel band design, paired with Strava or Map My Run. Every km or mi the watch gives you your pace. Instant and important feedback from the app to your watch/band. Now think of that band having a pulse reading sensor. This info is immediately paired with your workout. See all your stats at the end. During a workout you get important feedback on whether your are exerting yourself too much expressed as a percentage of your max heart rate.
Something along those lines. No bulky screen necessary.
A market that was once largely the province of Sony and smaller players like Pebble has seen many more players expressing interest.
Sony: bloated, old-fashioned, and losing mindshare ever since iPod killed off Walkman.
Pebble: tiny, under-funded, the VisiCalc of smart watches (first on the market, first to get crushed.)
Intel: desperately seeking any kind of success in the mobile, post-PC era, and falling years behind.
Apple: in no hurry at all to release iWatch, waiting for would-be competitors to make their glaring mistakes.