The only way to really stand out is to merge swiss made with California technology.
I agree. Expertise of Swiss watch manufacturers in design, manufacture and marketing of wearable devices is indeed an important ingredient for Apple and their technology. I will, however, argue that iWatch will be marketed as Designed in California as it is Apple who is adding the most value in the form of a revolutionary concept, unique and exciting use cases and one-of-a-kind app ecosystem.
I will also argue that the difference between a watch and iWatch will be the same as between a record player and the iPod. The iPod's sound is worse but it can do so much more! Note that iPod is an iconic music player yet it is not in any way associated with any hi-fi brand. Its thousands songs in your pocket, high portability and iconic design add so much more value. Likewise, iWatch (as with every new Apple product category) is likely to offer such exciting use cases and features that it won't need in any way association with Swiss watches. On contrary, I think Apple will be highly critical of Swiss manufacturers as they have failed to innovate, do not appeal with their products to younger generations and as such can cease to exist in the future or become a niche.
As to what it is that will make iWatch stand out, in my opinion it will be 3 things:
1. Largest screen ever seen on a wearable device
2. Highest number of sensors ever seen in a wearable
3. Game changing apps and ecosystem based on body-machine interaction and always on hand device
Thanks to the large number of sensors, the resulting interaction between software and body will be game changing. Furthermore, decades old truth - software is king. And software absolutely dictates a screen large enough to allow easy reading and understanding of data and context. If you've seen Android wear and the put on your prescription glasses, swipe to death and still be lost interface, you know what I mean. Of course, all of this packaged in a-must-have Jony design with little resemblance to a watch. Cue an iPhone-like game changer.
Wizard is just a grumpy person, I hate this and that, if it doesn't come out of a Foxconn factory it isn't worth a look. He just needs a hug.
You are right about being grumpy, I blame that in part on running iOS beta on my iPad. It will be great if they every get the bugs out! For some reason it likes to crash on the Appleinsider forums too. Oh and spell check is actually worst then in iOS7!
As for hate that isn't the case at all, I'm very amendable to Linux and other hardware. The thing is if I had the money required to buy some of these watches I wouldn't waste that money on a watch. Instead ID take a vacation to Thailand, Jamaica or maybe Switzerland . I'm just not sure I could handle all the cheese in Switzerland, I might have to leave early. In any event it is about priorities, I simply don't have a desire to spend outrageously especially if it feeds ones vanity.
As for the technology, I do find it interesting probably because of my mechanically oriented mind. For people in the US following this thread I'd like to point out that there is an interesting watch and clock museum in southern PA that is worth a look if you are in the area. I think people confuse my lack of interest in the high end watch business as a sign that I'm very pro Apple. That isn't the case, while I find the technology interesting I've never been driven to wear a watch. I actually tried it a few times and gave up, I'm just not a jewelry type of guy I guess.
As for a hug well I never turned one down! However lately hugs have been few and far between, it is like a barrier as wide as the Atlantic between you and me right now.
In any event I thought this thread was all about what is up with iWatch yet we seemed to have detored into arguments about old Swiss watches! The funny thing is the last two days I've bern going over the idea that Apple isn't working on a watch per say but rather a communicator you wear on a shirt much like as seen in old Star Trek flicks. I just have to wonder if bio monitoring can be done from there.
I just watched the CNBC video clip of Biver speaking about the new Apple hire. It is amazing that he would go on international television to announce his lost the very next day after the loss had occurred. I do not understand his motives with any of the interviews he has had about Apple's iWatch. All he has done in my opinion is add more fuel to the fire of Apple's mystery smart watch.
On another note. From the associated March 28th article...
It is "conceivable that they [Apple] would be interested in developing a type of hybrid with some type of mechanical aspects...the Swiss watch industry is very adept at metallurgy," said Patek Philippe president Larry Pettinelli.
What if it's not a watch, but a watch band? What if Apple is doing is MARRYING the old and the new? They probably will offer a "watch" to go with the band, but what if you can also just get the band and put your own watch on it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Yeah, see that falls a little to much on the gadgetry side for me and something that I wouldn't wear personally, I guess maybe a little too young for my taste. I know my kids will go gaga over something like that though, which will probably be Apples target group anyway, young teens to mid twenties. With of course the exceptions, like wearing one during exercise but to be honest Timex and Garmin sell some pretty great workout watches with all the bells and whistles like heart monitor and GPS trackings for less then 150 bucks with batteries that pretty much last forever. So it might be a hard sell for Apple if their going to charge 300 for theirs and require an iPhone to get a GPS signal.
We don't know how much Apple will charge. Also, IMHO, it will have various types of bands, as I said to SolipsismX above, from the expensive (silver, gold, platinum) to the inexpensive (colorful plastic).
What happened in the seventies and eighties was that cheap quartz watches almost killed the established Swiss watch industry, a parallel could be drawn from what happened to Apple in the nineties when Microsoft powered cheap PC's almost wiped them out.
The iPhone was destined to bomb as well. The prestige watch heads better be careful. Might find their predictions falling flat a few years from now. The Swiss made watch was future tech at one time. Life and technology thankfully moves on. I'm all down for an Apple made smart watch. Nothing worth doing doesn't come without a few naysayers.
Hmm... I could see this effort from Apple (and efforts from Google, maybe even Microsoft) hurting brands like Swatch, Casio, Citizen... maybe even Seiko, Tissot, Edox... But above that, we are talking different market with different focus, purpose, symbolism. I mean, my everyday Casio Edifice is better than many high-end mechanical watches in many ways - it is accurate down to around 1 sec per 6 months (surely by accident, not by design... but still), has 10 years battery life (low maintenance), solid stainless steel case and band, crystal glass... and with all that, it is only exactly what it is, NZ$150 Casio Edifice watch.
When someone invests into XY thousand $ watch, it is not for practicality of it. It is for status symbol, pleasure in knowledge of owning it, tradition in some cases. It is something you plan to leave to your children and grandchildren. It is not just a watch, it's... everything but a watch.
Hmm... I could see this effort from Apple (and efforts from Google, maybe even Microsoft) hurting brands like Swatch, Casio, Citizen... maybe even Seiko, Tissot, Edox... But above that, we are talking different market with different focus, purpose, symbolism. I mean, my everyday Casio Edifice is better than many high-end mechanical watches in many ways - it is accurate down to around 1 sec per 6 months (surely by accident, not by design... but still), has 10 years battery life (low maintenance), solid stainless steel case and band, crystal glass... and with all that, it is only exactly what it is, NZ$150 Casio Edifice watch.
When someone invests into XY thousand $ watch, it is not for practicality of it. It is for status symbol, pleasure in knowledge of owning it, tradition in some cases. It is something you plan to leave to your children and grandchildren. It is not just a watch, it's... everything but a watch.
Edifice are pretty good, if only we had the radio signal in Oceana so it could set itself.
Highly reliable and with care able to last hundreds of years, these watches are designed to become family heirlooms.
It took a couple of days but I just realized how this is so similar to the machine tool industry. A quality machine tool built a century ago can still be extremely functional however it won't have the fancy CNC controls and other electronics on it (unless retrofitted). A good machinist can still make use of such a machine tool and frankly many run fine businesses with such tools. However a rather larger majority of business these days would opt for CNC based machine tools as the more modern way to get work done.
Is one businessman wrong and the other right here. Obviously not as each has his own goals, abilities and customer's.
I've got a 1967 Rolex, picked it up, wound it and it started working after sitting in a box for twenty years.
I don't even have a watch in the house and haven't had one for atleast 20 years. Now I tried wearing a watch or two around my teen years but could never get into it.
It's all about the craftsmanship that goes into them, in a largely throw away society some people still appreciate things made to last.
The problem here is that craftsmanship still goes into lower end watches. You don't need to spend $20,000 to get a watch that lasts. Repairability is another thing but honestly I don't expect iWatch to be highly repairable. This is mainly due to the integration and micro electronics required to effectively offer up all the rumored features.
In general this is the sad thing about electronics these days. Often a repair entails pulling a board and throwing it out. It isn't a question of not being made to last but rather an artifact of the technology as it often costs far more to repair a board than it costs to make a new one. If some of the rumors become reality about the extent that Apple is going with iWatch electronics repairs will be boards at a time if they support repairs at all.
The iWatch as articulated by the rumor mills is still a solution in search of a problem. The goofy renderings that morph the iPhone into a watch are particularly humorous. It would be like rendering early automobiles in the shape of a horse but with wheels instead of legs.
Traditional watches are for most people, other than say divers and pilots, mostly personal jewelry products. As such their functionality is secondary to their beauty. There are already electromechanical watches on the market that have touch screens and multiple sophisticated features like altimeters, thermometers, and compasses, see Tissot P Touch. Would an Apple watch simply extend what a P Touch does with data and additional sensors? Would that make anyone want to buy it? I'm not so sure.
I'm sure you can fabricate use cases for what an iWatch product might do, but that's exactly the wrong way to go about solving a problem - to define a solution and then try to figure out how to rationalize its existence is completely backwards. If Apple builds a wearable technology device I'd imagine that they had some very clear use cases to drive the creation of the product well before they envisioned what it should do and look like.
The iPad wasn't a proof of concept. It was started years before the iPhone work was started and it already had a list of use cases inherited from the Newton and other prior attempts at computing devices in that general form factor. The iPad also had an overwhelmingly clear set of things that it was either enabling, enhancing, or replacing. The first time I saw Steve Jobs holding the iPad I immediately saw stacks of printed books, magazines, newspapers, and record collections disappearing and being replaced by the iPad. I immediately recognized how immersive the browsing experience would be with a big screen device cradled in your arms while sitting on a sofa or park bench. The iPad clearly replaced, enhanced, and simplified some very fundamental use cases in a way that the iPhone and iPod Touch could not. The big screen made all the difference. Goodbye stacks of magazines and newspapers.
So, when I consider the iWatch I keep asking myself "what fundamental and life changing use cases does the thing address?" If it's just another toy like most of the other wearables are, or just another piece of jewelry, or just a minor tweak so I don't have to dig my phone out of my pocket (the pain, the insufferable pain!) then I'm scratching my head about why Apple would bother getting into the market. On the other hand perhaps Apple has envisioned use cases that I have not even thought about. That's why I'm not totally blowing the concept off, because I trust Apple wouldn't bring something to market that doesn't have any redeeming value beyond techno-lust and playtime gadgetry. Let's see what they come up with.
You are right, they also offer you the choice of an ICON Type Transparent Display (Static icons, Numbers & English text only). But I imagine that option will probably only support Kairos OS and not Android Wear. It's indeed hard to find any info about it, but since it only supports static icons it looks like it would be a more primitive type display (but probably more power efficient though). Maybe something like transparent e-ink.
edit: typo
With my limited understanding of e-ink, I believe it would not be possible to have a transparent display.
I believe that iWatch will mainly be used to display location-based information from iBeacon. User can also use it to interact with electronic devices around them. It'll use health data from User as a context awareness too.
Recent Apple's fused glass patent suggest that Apple should make a device like this
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">So, when I consider the iWatch I keep asking myself "what fundamental and life changing use cases does the thing address?"
That is really the key question, it's all about compelling use cases. But Tim already gave us a big hint at one of the D conferences.
First, if you look at the wrist, there are 3 benefits to a wristworn device:
1. Fashion - visible to all, it allows for a personality statement
2. Convenience - always visible to you, it allows for immediate viewing/access to information/controls/features
3. Body measurement - directly touching your body/skin, it allows to measure your body functions
Fashion - it has been done thousands of times before and though I am sure Apple can innovate here and bring its unique hardware+software touch (how about a band made of flexible display, allowing for custom skins instead of changing physical bands?), I think fashion alone does not justify a new Apple product category
Convenience - Warmer. Again, done many times before but still with room to innovate. Cue payments, personal identification and the Disney Magic band which Disney (connected with Apple through the board room just as Nike is!) already employs in their Orlando park (there is a great article about it in PC World). Again, it's starting to be intriguing but such product would still not fully make "a significant contribution" which would justify a new Apple product category - the rarest of breeds.
Body Measurement - Hot! Tim said he was most intrigued by the possibility of a wearable device to change one's behavior. If you think about it, our always connected devices tell us million different things from your stocks value, weather in Rio, current news from Asia. But none tell us anything about the most important and priceless thing in our life - our health!
I believe fitness, health and sleep monitoring will be the main drawing card. For the first time, a person can constantly monitor his/her health, feed the data to his/her physician, get feedback and/or learn to interpret the data with the physician's help and - adjust behavior. Also, there can be a groundbreaking interaction with apps (as already suggested by Apple patents). Let's say my calendar for tomorrow morning is clear. I set the alarm for 8 AM. But I fall asleep only at 1 AM and my sleep is interupted several times. The device then (if enabled) automatically changes the alarm to 9 AM as it recognizes based on past measurements you need at least 8 hours of sleep. And the list of possibilities could go on and on.
Conclusion - though we can count on Apple releasing a beatifully designed product with many convenience features (iOS 8 and recent Tim's comments strongly suggest quick contextual message replying and voice messaging), the least explored but potentially the most benefitial uses cases are the ones related to payments, personal ID and mainly health. In my opionin, measuring health and the body-app interaction can brake new grounds.
Comments
I agree. Expertise of Swiss watch manufacturers in design, manufacture and marketing of wearable devices is indeed an important ingredient for Apple and their technology. I will, however, argue that iWatch will be marketed as Designed in California as it is Apple who is adding the most value in the form of a revolutionary concept, unique and exciting use cases and one-of-a-kind app ecosystem.
I will also argue that the difference between a watch and iWatch will be the same as between a record player and the iPod. The iPod's sound is worse but it can do so much more! Note that iPod is an iconic music player yet it is not in any way associated with any hi-fi brand. Its thousands songs in your pocket, high portability and iconic design add so much more value. Likewise, iWatch (as with every new Apple product category) is likely to offer such exciting use cases and features that it won't need in any way association with Swiss watches. On contrary, I think Apple will be highly critical of Swiss manufacturers as they have failed to innovate, do not appeal with their products to younger generations and as such can cease to exist in the future or become a niche.
As to what it is that will make iWatch stand out, in my opinion it will be 3 things:
1. Largest screen ever seen on a wearable device
2. Highest number of sensors ever seen in a wearable
3. Game changing apps and ecosystem based on body-machine interaction and always on hand device
Thanks to the large number of sensors, the resulting interaction between software and body will be game changing. Furthermore, decades old truth - software is king. And software absolutely dictates a screen large enough to allow easy reading and understanding of data and context. If you've seen Android wear and the put on your prescription glasses, swipe to death and still be lost interface, you know what I mean. Of course, all of this packaged in a-must-have Jony design with little resemblance to a watch. Cue an iPhone-like game changer.
You are right about being grumpy, I blame that in part on running iOS beta on my iPad. It will be great if they every get the bugs out! For some reason it likes to crash on the Appleinsider forums too. Oh and spell check is actually worst then in iOS7!
As for hate that isn't the case at all, I'm very amendable to Linux and other hardware. The thing is if I had the money required to buy some of these watches I wouldn't waste that money on a watch. Instead ID take a vacation to Thailand, Jamaica or maybe Switzerland
As for the technology, I do find it interesting probably because of my mechanically oriented mind. For people in the US following this thread I'd like to point out that there is an interesting watch and clock museum in southern PA that is worth a look if you are in the area. I think people confuse my lack of interest in the high end watch business as a sign that I'm very pro Apple. That isn't the case, while I find the technology interesting I've never been driven to wear a watch. I actually tried it a few times and gave up, I'm just not a jewelry type of guy I guess.
As for a hug well I never turned one down! However lately hugs have been few and far between, it is like a barrier as wide as the Atlantic between you and me right now.
In any event I thought this thread was all about what is up with iWatch yet we seemed to have detored into arguments about old Swiss watches! The funny thing is the last two days I've bern going over the idea that Apple isn't working on a watch per say but rather a communicator you wear on a shirt much like as seen in old Star Trek flicks. I just have to wonder if bio monitoring can be done from there.
iYawn!
I just watched the CNBC video clip of Biver speaking about the new Apple hire. It is amazing that he would go on international television to announce his lost the very next day after the loss had occurred. I do not understand his motives with any of the interviews he has had about Apple's iWatch. All he has done in my opinion is add more fuel to the fire of Apple's mystery smart watch.
On another note. From the associated March 28th article...
It is "conceivable that they [Apple] would be interested in developing a type of hybrid with some type of mechanical aspects...the Swiss watch industry is very adept at metallurgy," said Patek Philippe president Larry Pettinelli.
Liquid Metal anyone? Liquid Metal?
Interesting...a hybrid is what I surmised.
Something Horace Deidu says in this interview makes me think Apple may be about to do something really different. http://www.asymco.com/2014/07/02/apple-lessons-in-self-destruction-richard-gutjahrs-blog/#disqus_thread
What if it's not a watch, but a watch band? What if Apple is doing is MARRYING the old and the new? They probably will offer a "watch" to go with the band, but what if you can also just get the band and put your own watch on it?
Yeah, see that falls a little to much on the gadgetry side for me and something that I wouldn't wear personally, I guess maybe a little too young for my taste. I know my kids will go gaga over something like that though, which will probably be Apples target group anyway, young teens to mid twenties. With of course the exceptions, like wearing one during exercise but to be honest Timex and Garmin sell some pretty great workout watches with all the bells and whistles like heart monitor and GPS trackings for less then 150 bucks with batteries that pretty much last forever. So it might be a hard sell for Apple if their going to charge 300 for theirs and require an iPhone to get a GPS signal.
We don't know how much Apple will charge. Also, IMHO, it will have various types of bands, as I said to SolipsismX above, from the expensive (silver, gold, platinum) to the inexpensive (colorful plastic).
Dead on arrival. It would have to be leather.
Aaaawwwwhhh, I hate cats!
No need for cattiness on this thread.
Apple better buy this company before Samsung does!!
Noooooo, leave my Swissy company alone!
I was sad to see Federer lose yesterday. He is easily the most sublime tennis player I have ever had the good fortune to see.
Contrast that with high end mechanical watches that are technology dinosaurs, are unreliable and have a very limited appeal.
Highly reliable and with care able to last hundreds of years, these watches are designed to become family heirlooms.
I've got a 1967 Rolex, picked it up, wound it and it started working after sitting in a box for twenty years.
It's all about the craftsmanship that goes into them, in a largely throw away society some people still appreciate things made to last.
I have a Seiko, the watch that Archie in your video really loves, that has lasted me decades. Just as elegant as a PP. Think it cost about £40.
I have a Seiko, the watch that Archie in your video really loves, that has lasted me decades. Just as elegant as a PP. Think it cost about £40.
Not quite, unless you have one of these:-
Which would cost you a lot more than 40 quid.
What happened in the seventies and eighties was that cheap quartz watches almost killed the established Swiss watch industry, a parallel could be drawn from what happened to Apple in the nineties when Microsoft powered cheap PC's almost wiped them out.
Hmm... I could see this effort from Apple (and efforts from Google, maybe even Microsoft) hurting brands like Swatch, Casio, Citizen... maybe even Seiko, Tissot, Edox... But above that, we are talking different market with different focus, purpose, symbolism. I mean, my everyday Casio Edifice is better than many high-end mechanical watches in many ways - it is accurate down to around 1 sec per 6 months (surely by accident, not by design... but still), has 10 years battery life (low maintenance), solid stainless steel case and band, crystal glass... and with all that, it is only exactly what it is, NZ$150 Casio Edifice watch.
When someone invests into XY thousand $ watch, it is not for practicality of it. It is for status symbol, pleasure in knowledge of owning it, tradition in some cases. It is something you plan to leave to your children and grandchildren. It is not just a watch, it's... everything but a watch.
Edifice are pretty good, if only we had the radio signal in Oceana so it could set itself.
Oh I'm sorry Hill60, I just saw your post. That's a really pretty watch, I've always liked the Seamaster Aqua Terra.
Is one businessman wrong and the other right here. Obviously not as each has his own goals, abilities and customer's. I don't even have a watch in the house and haven't had one for atleast 20 years. Now I tried wearing a watch or two around my teen years but could never get into it.
The problem here is that craftsmanship still goes into lower end watches. You don't need to spend $20,000 to get a watch that lasts. Repairability is another thing but honestly I don't expect iWatch to be highly repairable. This is mainly due to the integration and micro electronics required to effectively offer up all the rumored features.
In general this is the sad thing about electronics these days. Often a repair entails pulling a board and throwing it out. It isn't a question of not being made to last but rather an artifact of the technology as it often costs far more to repair a board than it costs to make a new one. If some of the rumors become reality about the extent that Apple is going with iWatch electronics repairs will be boards at a time if they support repairs at all.
The iWatch as articulated by the rumor mills is still a solution in search of a problem. The goofy renderings that morph the iPhone into a watch are particularly humorous. It would be like rendering early automobiles in the shape of a horse but with wheels instead of legs.
Traditional watches are for most people, other than say divers and pilots, mostly personal jewelry products. As such their functionality is secondary to their beauty. There are already electromechanical watches on the market that have touch screens and multiple sophisticated features like altimeters, thermometers, and compasses, see Tissot P Touch. Would an Apple watch simply extend what a P Touch does with data and additional sensors? Would that make anyone want to buy it? I'm not so sure.
I'm sure you can fabricate use cases for what an iWatch product might do, but that's exactly the wrong way to go about solving a problem - to define a solution and then try to figure out how to rationalize its existence is completely backwards. If Apple builds a wearable technology device I'd imagine that they had some very clear use cases to drive the creation of the product well before they envisioned what it should do and look like.
The iPad wasn't a proof of concept. It was started years before the iPhone work was started and it already had a list of use cases inherited from the Newton and other prior attempts at computing devices in that general form factor. The iPad also had an overwhelmingly clear set of things that it was either enabling, enhancing, or replacing. The first time I saw Steve Jobs holding the iPad I immediately saw stacks of printed books, magazines, newspapers, and record collections disappearing and being replaced by the iPad. I immediately recognized how immersive the browsing experience would be with a big screen device cradled in your arms while sitting on a sofa or park bench. The iPad clearly replaced, enhanced, and simplified some very fundamental use cases in a way that the iPhone and iPod Touch could not. The big screen made all the difference. Goodbye stacks of magazines and newspapers.
So, when I consider the iWatch I keep asking myself "what fundamental and life changing use cases does the thing address?" If it's just another toy like most of the other wearables are, or just another piece of jewelry, or just a minor tweak so I don't have to dig my phone out of my pocket (the pain, the insufferable pain!) then I'm scratching my head about why Apple would bother getting into the market. On the other hand perhaps Apple has envisioned use cases that I have not even thought about. That's why I'm not totally blowing the concept off, because I trust Apple wouldn't bring something to market that doesn't have any redeeming value beyond techno-lust and playtime gadgetry. Let's see what they come up with.
With my limited understanding of e-ink, I believe it would not be possible to have a transparent display.
Do you also have a Aston Martin to complete your James Bond kit?
I believe that iWatch will mainly be used to display location-based information from iBeacon. User can also use it to interact with electronic devices around them. It'll use health data from User as a context awareness too.
Recent Apple's fused glass patent suggest that Apple should make a device like this
Check out below articles for more photo:
https://medium.com/@verybadpig1/predicting-apple-future-roadmap-part-2-3986af5e3199
https://medium.com/@verybadpig1/predicting-apple-google-future-roadmap-2fd886ad66
That is really the key question, it's all about compelling use cases. But Tim already gave us a big hint at one of the D conferences.
First, if you look at the wrist, there are 3 benefits to a wristworn device:
1. Fashion - visible to all, it allows for a personality statement
2. Convenience - always visible to you, it allows for immediate viewing/access to information/controls/features
3. Body measurement - directly touching your body/skin, it allows to measure your body functions
Fashion - it has been done thousands of times before and though I am sure Apple can innovate here and bring its unique hardware+software touch (how about a band made of flexible display, allowing for custom skins instead of changing physical bands?), I think fashion alone does not justify a new Apple product category
Convenience - Warmer. Again, done many times before but still with room to innovate. Cue payments, personal identification and the Disney Magic band which Disney (connected with Apple through the board room just as Nike is!) already employs in their Orlando park (there is a great article about it in PC World). Again, it's starting to be intriguing but such product would still not fully make "a significant contribution" which would justify a new Apple product category - the rarest of breeds.
Body Measurement - Hot! Tim said he was most intrigued by the possibility of a wearable device to change one's behavior. If you think about it, our always connected devices tell us million different things from your stocks value, weather in Rio, current news from Asia. But none tell us anything about the most important and priceless thing in our life - our health!
I believe fitness, health and sleep monitoring will be the main drawing card. For the first time, a person can constantly monitor his/her health, feed the data to his/her physician, get feedback and/or learn to interpret the data with the physician's help and - adjust behavior. Also, there can be a groundbreaking interaction with apps (as already suggested by Apple patents). Let's say my calendar for tomorrow morning is clear. I set the alarm for 8 AM. But I fall asleep only at 1 AM and my sleep is interupted several times. The device then (if enabled) automatically changes the alarm to 9 AM as it recognizes based on past measurements you need at least 8 hours of sleep. And the list of possibilities could go on and on.
Conclusion - though we can count on Apple releasing a beatifully designed product with many convenience features (iOS 8 and recent Tim's comments strongly suggest quick contextual message replying and voice messaging), the least explored but potentially the most benefitial uses cases are the ones related to payments, personal ID and mainly health. In my opionin, measuring health and the body-app interaction can brake new grounds.
Do you also have a Aston Martin to complete your James Bond kit?
No, but I have a jar of olives, ice and some gin, vodka and vermouth.