Great read. Thanks for posting it. I very much agree with the spirit of his piece. I'm just not convinced that the Apple Watch (or any smart watch) will be the primary means of interacting with Internet-enabled things. But perhaps wearables are a necessary step to get us to where we're going?
In my opinion, it's all about voice control. When I can walk into a room and say "lights at 50%" or "play the new Arctic Monkeys album" or "watch Walking Dead" or "set the oven to 450 degrees", etc., and it knows where I am in the house and which device(s) to control, that will be revolutionary. Until then, the watch (or iPhone, for that matter) doesn't really add value here. I'm in the midst of a major home remodel/rebuild and I seriously considered adding "smart home" features like lighting that I could control from my iPhone. But then I realized how many steps are involved in 1) picking up the iPhone, 2) unlocking it, 3) launching the app, 4) selecting the room, and 5) finally, adjusting my settings. In that time I can get my lazy *** off the couch, manually adjust my lighting, and sit back down.
I feel the same way. Lighting is a huge opportunity though, but not via an app, for the reasons you mentioned. I've replaced most of my lightbulbs with LED versions with built-in wireless that I can turn on and off or dim from a small remote. The remote is so cheap that I have one for every room in the house, so there's always one handy.
Check them out. Much cheaper than Phillips and doesn't require an app. The only thing that's pricey is shipping because they're in New Zealand...
I think voice is a dead end, and that it will never get adopted in a big way, for simple reasons: you don't use voice in most public places if you can help it, and it doesn't solve a problem that exists. Also, most people find it odd talking to a computer.
Are you kidding? I use voice all the time when composing text messages, asking for directions, and for creating reminders on the go. Voice input is how I add items to my grocery shopping list as I run out of stuff around the house. Just because you haven't figured out how to make them work for you shouldn't be reason to dismiss their usefulness.
Just because you can't type while walking on the sidewalk or driving doesn't mean keyboards are obsolete. Likewise just because voice isn't practical in some environments doesn't negate the fact that it's indispensable in others.
Given the challenge of having houseful of gadgets respond to your voice, wouldn't it make sense for the voice interface to be on your wrist?
I think it's more about a hub that is always listening and aware of your location that knows what device you wish to control. I'm not sure a wrist worn device is actually necessary, although it could very easily be the way one interacts with the home hub. Or microphones could be installed throughout the house. Or one could wear a little pin or some other piece of jewelry with the microphone. Personally I don't want to have to wear anything. I just want microphones placed inconspicuously around the house. There are now speakers that can be completely covered with drywall mud so you have no idea they're there. Same could happen for a little home hub mic in every room.
Why would making it out of plastic make it easier to waterproof? It's actually just the opposite since plastics are soft, and can more easily deform and compromise watertight seals.
Ah, you're right. I hadn't really even thought this through. Only to say that I've had water-resistant watches made out of plastic, indeed my current Vestal Brig surf watch is plastic, water-resistant to 100 meters, though it has a stainless steel back. I wonder what technology they are using to get around your perceived problems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
Siri is going to be a key input method (voice commands, dictation, and voice messages) and it won't work without a microphone. Likewise the speaker is necessary to listen to a quick message or voicemail. You don't sacrifice key functionality for a feature that will only be used by some people some of the time.
Just to make the point -- Siri requires the iPhone, as does the speaker. It's also a large power draw. In my opinion, it's a technology that was introduced too soon for the power capabilities of the watch, as well as the abilities of Siri. But I will reserve judgement until I get a sense of how practical it actually is in the real world. I've found Siri dictation to be quite unreliable ... I have to constantly edit my texts, which seems seriously tedious on the watch interface. At that point, I would rather pull out my phone. Voice commands are nice, but are they necessary? I could see asking what's the temperature outside, and getting a quick answer on the watch, but is it really necessary? In most cases, I see voice commands as impractical, either because of background noise, or being in a situation that doesn't allow me to speak such commands, like in a meeting, or Siri just not understanding what I'm asking for the 3rd time in a row. This is the case with using Siri on my iPhone now. For now, I don't see it as KEY functionality at all. I see it as a bonus convenience. Likewise for the speaker ... it's nice that I can listen to a voicemail on my watch without pulling my phone out, but will I really use that technology on a regular basis? Again, in most cases I'm in a situation where it would be inappropriate to play my messages publicly, or so loud it might be hard to hear on a tiny speaker (often the case on the iPhone). I would much rather pop on my BT headphones and listen in complete privacy and clarity. Again, I see integrated notifications as the KEY feature of the ?Watch, and just seeing who left voicemail is enough. If it's urgent you stop what you're doing and pull out your phone. Having it on the watch is merely a convenience -- a luxury on a first generation product, especially sine it has the potential to drain the battery so quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
The plastic "C" model sold so well that Apple discontinued it.
Is this a fact, or a guess? Everything I've read from Apple says the C sold very well. I see them all over the place. And it did exactly what it was supposed to do. And do you know for a fact that there won't be a plastic 5S offered next year as an entry level model? Again nothing wrong with plastic, as Apple repeatedly told us.
Taking into account your relevant concerns, I'd say again that a product which omits certain technologies for a certain demographic is not unusual for Apple. Most sports enthusiasts are used to plastic watches. And I'd happily pay the price for one which sacrifices Siri and a built-in speaker if it were "waterproof". Once I started using it, I might be inclined to buy one for more than one just fitness. It might also be a true gateway product to get people to buy an iPhone (or other Apple product assuming the watch can eventually be set up on any Apple device). If someone is interested in a fitness tracker only, they might not care to pony up the money for everything the ?Watch can do. But a model that's more in line with other fitness trackers (say $299) that omits certain features, while far exceeding those of other fitness watches -- which people don't really plan on using with their phones anyway during sporting activities -- seems like a reasonable way to approach this while solving an immediate problem, that potentially limits sales to a potentially large group of sports enthusiasts.
You may be right, but without more concrete analysis, I wouldn't write this off so easily as a possibility.
Given the challenge of having houseful of gadgets respond to your voice, wouldn't it make sense for the voice interface to be on your wrist?
This makes sense. And it would help Apple sell more ?Watches. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about an entry-level plastic "sport" watch. Perhaps they could call it "?Watch Extreme". It omits this functionality which in turn allows people to test out the rest of its capabilities (arguably the more important ones) before making a decision to buy a $1000 model for daily wear, which allows them to interface with Siri around the house too.
Watches are fashion accessories, thus considered jewelry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
This makes sense. And it would help Apple sell more ?Watches. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about an entry-level plastic "sport" watch. Perhaps they could call it "?Watch Extreme". It omits this functionality which in turn allows people to test out the rest of its capabilities (arguably the more important ones) before making a decision to buy a $1000 model for daily wear, which allows them to interface with Siri around the house too.
You do realize they start at $349, not $1000? That's the entry level model.
Are you suggesting it would be a smarter business decision for Apple to sell a cheaper Watch now, or that they should prioritize making the watch affordable for the low end of the market despite that it would bring down their ASP and margins?
You do realize they start at $349, not $1000? That's the entry level model.
Yes. My point is, you get somebody who wants a fitness tracker who doesn't really want everything the ?Watch can do, to buy an entry-level model (kind of like buying an iPod nano before they commit to the Touch). They spend $299, and get the experience of all the things it can do, and they decide they want to replace their current "dress" watch, or just buy a nice one for daily wear and spend end up spending $500-$1,000, which gets them a much nicer watch, and Siri integration, and they still have their "Extreme" watch which is "waterproof" for fitness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
Are you suggesting it would be a smarter business decision for Apple to sell a cheaper Watch now, or that they should prioritize making the watch affordable for the low end of the market despite that it would bring down their ASP and margins?
I wouldn't expect Apple to offer a less expensive option to the ?Watch until at least next year, when they update the current model. By that time, they may offer a more robust water-resistant watch in general.
As for bringing down their ASP & margins ... again, you have to prove that the 5C did that, which by all indication from Apple, it didn't. There are many positives about getting an ?Watch into the hands of as many people as possible, ?Pay chief among them. The more people using ?Pay the more money goes to Apple's bottom line. So I'm not sold that merely offering a more affordable product undercuts Apple's profits. Apple has said the same thing about the iPad mini. The people who buy the entry level watch, weren't going to buy it otherwise. There's a chance that some people who would have bought a Sport might spend less and get the cheapest, but there's a trade-off in features, just like with the 5C and 5S to consider.
Then there's the "watch people" who are used to owning multiple watches. Perhaps they opt to buy the nicer-looking Sport watch, but also see a need for a "water-proof" plastic version to wear to the beach, and on vacation, and to the pool, the water park -- never mind sports related activities. So they buy both since they are each so affordable! Then they love them so much they go back and buy the $800 upgrade, etc.
So I see it as a win for Apple, especially since it means I might get what I want sooner.
Agreed on Titanium... I love my Ti Seiko too. If Ti watch and band was offered in April, I wouldn't be second guessing whether to get one now or later (2nd gen).
Is this a demographic that traditionally embraces new technology and is willing to pay higher prices for products with premium design, materials, and workmanship? If the answer is no, then I don't think they'd be receptive to the sort of products Apple likes to make.
Hell yes. This demo loves their toys. They work hard and play harder. Don't be such a snob
Very dangerous to machine. Only really used in aerospace industry and F1 / very high end engineering. It feels like the best aluminium you've ever held, but better. Almost non metallic as it's so light!
This makes sense. And it would help Apple sell more ?Watches. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about an entry-level plastic "sport" watch. Perhaps they could call it "?Watch Extreme". It omits this functionality which in turn allows people to test out the rest of its capabilities (arguably the more important ones) before making a decision to buy a $1000 model for daily wear, which allows them to interface with Siri around the house too.
Nope that'll be silly. $350 is perfectly fine for an entry watch. Would you recommend that Rolex should also make an plastic watch for the entry level market.
Yes. My point is, you get somebody who wants a fitness tracker who doesn't really want everything the ?Watch can do, to buy an entry-level model (kind of like buying an iPod nano before they commit to the Touch). They spend $299, and get the experience of all the things it can do, and they decide they want to replace their current "dress" watch, or just buy a nice one for daily wear and spend end up spending $500-$1,000, which gets them a much nicer watch, and Siri integration, and they still have their "Extreme" watch which is "waterproof" for fitness.
Why doesn't Apple just release a watch without all the tech behind the Apple Watch? They'll get people to buy a basic watch and future upgraders to buy a "real" Apple watch later. The main reason for the Apple Watch is its integration with the iPhone.
Why confuse users who may get the fitness tracker version by mistake?
Apple doesn't have to cater to every market and it shouldn't.
Nope that'll be silly. $350 is perfectly fine for an entry watch. Would you recommend that Rolex should also make an plastic watch for the entry level market.
Why doesn't Apple just release a watch without all the tech behind the Apple Watch? They'll get people to buy a basic watch and future upgraders to buy a "real" Apple watch later.
Now who's being silly?
The fact Apple introduced an entry level plastic iPhone they report as selling well is all the credibility I need behind my proposal.
Nope that'll be silly. $350 is perfectly fine for an entry watch. Would you recommend that Rolex should also make an plastic watch for the entry level market.
Whoah...hold on there. You may want to retract the analogy with Rolex. I don't think it's an accurate comparison in any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Apple doesn't have to cater to every market and it shouldn't.
Ok, to this I see where you're going and most would agree.
The fact Apple introduced an entry level plastic iPhone they report as selling well is all the credibility I need behind my proposal.
Except the C is still an iPhone and can do what a "normal" iPhone can do but without the latest and greatest features. Perhaps at the next cycle or two they would release the old watch hardware into a new plastic case. Who knows.
Except the C is still an iPhone and can do what a "normal" iPhone can do but without the latest and greatest features. Perhaps at the next cycle or two they would release the old watch hardware into a new plastic case. Who knows.
I'm waiting for him to say the original iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPhone 5 were failures because they only lasted a year on the market before being shit canned. It's a wonder the iPhone is still a product today with such horrible start¡
Yes. My point is, you get somebody who wants a fitness tracker who doesn't really want everything the ?Watch can do, to buy an entry-level model (kind of like buying an iPod nano before they commit to the Touch). They spend $299, and get the experience of all the things it can do, and they decide they want to replace their current "dress" watch, or just buy a nice one for daily wear and spend end up spending $500-$1,000, which gets them a much nicer watch, and Siri integration, and they still have their "Extreme" watch which is "waterproof" for fitness.
I wouldn't expect Apple to offer a less expensive option to the ?Watch until at least next year, when they update the current model. By that time, they may offer a more robust water-resistant watch in general.
As for bringing down their ASP & margins ... again, you have to prove that the 5C did that, which by all indication from Apple, it didn't. There are many positives about getting an ?Watch into the hands of as many people as possible, ?Pay chief among them. The more people using ?Pay the more money goes to Apple's bottom line. So I'm not sold that merely offering a more affordable product undercuts Apple's profits. Apple has said the same thing about the iPad mini. The people who buy the entry level watch, weren't going to buy it otherwise. There's a chance that some people who would have bought a Sport might spend less and get the cheapest, but there's a trade-off in features, just like with the 5C and 5S to consider.
Then there's the "watch people" who are used to owning multiple watches. Perhaps they opt to buy the nicer-looking Sport watch, but also see a need for a "water-proof" plastic version to wear to the beach, and on vacation, and to the pool, the water park -- never mind sports related activities. So they buy both since they are each so affordable! Then they love them so much they go back and buy the $800 upgrade, etc.
So I see it as a win for Apple, especially since it means I might get what I want sooner.
Terrible idea. Adding multiple variations to the internal offerings of the ?Watch will increase costs with no increased benefits to the customer.
Actually, diamonds are not really diamonds in one sense. They aren't rare at all, and the only reason they cost what they do is because of artificially created scarcity. There's nothing special about them (unless we're talking about industrial uses).
Gold, OTOH, is pretty scarce. Something like 150,000 tons has ever been mined in all of human history.
Comments
Great read. Thanks for posting it. I very much agree with the spirit of his piece. I'm just not convinced that the Apple Watch (or any smart watch) will be the primary means of interacting with Internet-enabled things. But perhaps wearables are a necessary step to get us to where we're going?
In my opinion, it's all about voice control. When I can walk into a room and say "lights at 50%" or "play the new Arctic Monkeys album" or "watch Walking Dead" or "set the oven to 450 degrees", etc., and it knows where I am in the house and which device(s) to control, that will be revolutionary. Until then, the watch (or iPhone, for that matter) doesn't really add value here. I'm in the midst of a major home remodel/rebuild and I seriously considered adding "smart home" features like lighting that I could control from my iPhone. But then I realized how many steps are involved in 1) picking up the iPhone, 2) unlocking it, 3) launching the app, 4) selecting the room, and 5) finally, adjusting my settings. In that time I can get my lazy *** off the couch, manually adjust my lighting, and sit back down.
I feel the same way. Lighting is a huge opportunity though, but not via an app, for the reasons you mentioned. I've replaced most of my lightbulbs with LED versions with built-in wireless that I can turn on and off or dim from a small remote. The remote is so cheap that I have one for every room in the house, so there's always one handy.
Check them out. Much cheaper than Phillips and doesn't require an app. The only thing that's pricey is shipping because they're in New Zealand...
http://www.limitlessled.com
http://www.limitlessled.com/product-category/limitlessled-smart-light-bulbs/
(These bulbs can optionally work with an app, but that requires setting up a wireless bridge which is a pain in the ass. The remotes work best.)
I disagree with you here.
I think voice is a dead end, and that it will never get adopted in a big way, for simple reasons: you don't use voice in most public places if you can help it, and it doesn't solve a problem that exists. Also, most people find it odd talking to a computer.
Are you kidding? I use voice all the time when composing text messages, asking for directions, and for creating reminders on the go. Voice input is how I add items to my grocery shopping list as I run out of stuff around the house. Just because you haven't figured out how to make them work for you shouldn't be reason to dismiss their usefulness.
Just because you can't type while walking on the sidewalk or driving doesn't mean keyboards are obsolete. Likewise just because voice isn't practical in some environments doesn't negate the fact that it's indispensable in others.
In my opinion, it's all about voice control.
Given the challenge of having houseful of gadgets respond to your voice, wouldn't it make sense for the voice interface to be on your wrist?
I think it's more about a hub that is always listening and aware of your location that knows what device you wish to control. I'm not sure a wrist worn device is actually necessary, although it could very easily be the way one interacts with the home hub. Or microphones could be installed throughout the house. Or one could wear a little pin or some other piece of jewelry with the microphone. Personally I don't want to have to wear anything. I just want microphones placed inconspicuously around the house. There are now speakers that can be completely covered with drywall mud so you have no idea they're there. Same could happen for a little home hub mic in every room.
Why would making it out of plastic make it easier to waterproof? It's actually just the opposite since plastics are soft, and can more easily deform and compromise watertight seals.
Ah, you're right. I hadn't really even thought this through. Only to say that I've had water-resistant watches made out of plastic, indeed my current Vestal Brig surf watch is plastic, water-resistant to 100 meters, though it has a stainless steel back. I wonder what technology they are using to get around your perceived problems?
Siri is going to be a key input method (voice commands, dictation, and voice messages) and it won't work without a microphone. Likewise the speaker is necessary to listen to a quick message or voicemail. You don't sacrifice key functionality for a feature that will only be used by some people some of the time.
Just to make the point -- Siri requires the iPhone, as does the speaker. It's also a large power draw. In my opinion, it's a technology that was introduced too soon for the power capabilities of the watch, as well as the abilities of Siri. But I will reserve judgement until I get a sense of how practical it actually is in the real world. I've found Siri dictation to be quite unreliable ... I have to constantly edit my texts, which seems seriously tedious on the watch interface. At that point, I would rather pull out my phone. Voice commands are nice, but are they necessary? I could see asking what's the temperature outside, and getting a quick answer on the watch, but is it really necessary? In most cases, I see voice commands as impractical, either because of background noise, or being in a situation that doesn't allow me to speak such commands, like in a meeting, or Siri just not understanding what I'm asking for the 3rd time in a row. This is the case with using Siri on my iPhone now. For now, I don't see it as KEY functionality at all. I see it as a bonus convenience. Likewise for the speaker ... it's nice that I can listen to a voicemail on my watch without pulling my phone out, but will I really use that technology on a regular basis? Again, in most cases I'm in a situation where it would be inappropriate to play my messages publicly, or so loud it might be hard to hear on a tiny speaker (often the case on the iPhone). I would much rather pop on my BT headphones and listen in complete privacy and clarity. Again, I see integrated notifications as the KEY feature of the ?Watch, and just seeing who left voicemail is enough. If it's urgent you stop what you're doing and pull out your phone. Having it on the watch is merely a convenience -- a luxury on a first generation product, especially sine it has the potential to drain the battery so quickly.
Is this a fact, or a guess? Everything I've read from Apple says the C sold very well. I see them all over the place. And it did exactly what it was supposed to do. And do you know for a fact that there won't be a plastic 5S offered next year as an entry level model? Again nothing wrong with plastic, as Apple repeatedly told us.
Taking into account your relevant concerns, I'd say again that a product which omits certain technologies for a certain demographic is not unusual for Apple. Most sports enthusiasts are used to plastic watches. And I'd happily pay the price for one which sacrifices Siri and a built-in speaker if it were "waterproof". Once I started using it, I might be inclined to buy one for more than one just fitness. It might also be a true gateway product to get people to buy an iPhone (or other Apple product assuming the watch can eventually be set up on any Apple device). If someone is interested in a fitness tracker only, they might not care to pony up the money for everything the ?Watch can do. But a model that's more in line with other fitness trackers (say $299) that omits certain features, while far exceeding those of other fitness watches -- which people don't really plan on using with their phones anyway during sporting activities -- seems like a reasonable way to approach this while solving an immediate problem, that potentially limits sales to a potentially large group of sports enthusiasts.
You may be right, but without more concrete analysis, I wouldn't write this off so easily as a possibility.
Given the challenge of having houseful of gadgets respond to your voice, wouldn't it make sense for the voice interface to be on your wrist?
This makes sense. And it would help Apple sell more ?Watches. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about an entry-level plastic "sport" watch. Perhaps they could call it "?Watch Extreme". It omits this functionality which in turn allows people to test out the rest of its capabilities (arguably the more important ones) before making a decision to buy a $1000 model for daily wear, which allows them to interface with Siri around the house too.
Watches are fashion accessories, thus considered jewelry.
This makes sense. And it would help Apple sell more ?Watches. ;-)
Which brings me back to my point about an entry-level plastic "sport" watch. Perhaps they could call it "?Watch Extreme". It omits this functionality which in turn allows people to test out the rest of its capabilities (arguably the more important ones) before making a decision to buy a $1000 model for daily wear, which allows them to interface with Siri around the house too.
You do realize they start at $349, not $1000? That's the entry level model.
Are you suggesting it would be a smarter business decision for Apple to sell a cheaper Watch now, or that they should prioritize making the watch affordable for the low end of the market despite that it would bring down their ASP and margins?
Originally Posted by freediverx
You do realize they start at $349, not $1000? That's the entry level model.
Yes. My point is, you get somebody who wants a fitness tracker who doesn't really want everything the ?Watch can do, to buy an entry-level model (kind of like buying an iPod nano before they commit to the Touch). They spend $299, and get the experience of all the things it can do, and they decide they want to replace their current "dress" watch, or just buy a nice one for daily wear and spend end up spending $500-$1,000, which gets them a much nicer watch, and Siri integration, and they still have their "Extreme" watch which is "waterproof" for fitness.
Are you suggesting it would be a smarter business decision for Apple to sell a cheaper Watch now, or that they should prioritize making the watch affordable for the low end of the market despite that it would bring down their ASP and margins?
I wouldn't expect Apple to offer a less expensive option to the ?Watch until at least next year, when they update the current model. By that time, they may offer a more robust water-resistant watch in general.
As for bringing down their ASP & margins ... again, you have to prove that the 5C did that, which by all indication from Apple, it didn't. There are many positives about getting an ?Watch into the hands of as many people as possible, ?Pay chief among them. The more people using ?Pay the more money goes to Apple's bottom line. So I'm not sold that merely offering a more affordable product undercuts Apple's profits. Apple has said the same thing about the iPad mini. The people who buy the entry level watch, weren't going to buy it otherwise. There's a chance that some people who would have bought a Sport might spend less and get the cheapest, but there's a trade-off in features, just like with the 5C and 5S to consider.
Then there's the "watch people" who are used to owning multiple watches. Perhaps they opt to buy the nicer-looking Sport watch, but also see a need for a "water-proof" plastic version to wear to the beach, and on vacation, and to the pool, the water park -- never mind sports related activities. So they buy both since they are each so affordable! Then they love them so much they go back and buy the $800 upgrade, etc.
So I see it as a win for Apple, especially since it means I might get what I want sooner.
Hell yes. This demo loves their toys. They work hard and play harder. Don't be such a snob
Very dangerous to machine. Only really used in aerospace industry and F1 / very high end engineering. It feels like the best aluminium you've ever held, but better. Almost non metallic as it's so light!
Nope that'll be silly. $350 is perfectly fine for an entry watch. Would you recommend that Rolex should also make an plastic watch for the entry level market.
Why doesn't Apple just release a watch without all the tech behind the Apple Watch? They'll get people to buy a basic watch and future upgraders to buy a "real" Apple watch later. The main reason for the Apple Watch is its integration with the iPhone.
Why confuse users who may get the fitness tracker version by mistake?
Apple doesn't have to cater to every market and it shouldn't.
The fact Apple introduced an entry level plastic iPhone they report as selling well is all the credibility I need behind my proposal.
Nope that'll be silly. $350 is perfectly fine for an entry watch. Would you recommend that Rolex should also make an plastic watch for the entry level market.
Whoah...hold on there. You may want to retract the analogy with Rolex. I don't think it's an accurate comparison in any sense.
Quote:
Apple doesn't have to cater to every market and it shouldn't.
Ok, to this I see where you're going and most would agree.
Except the C is still an iPhone and can do what a "normal" iPhone can do but without the latest and greatest features. Perhaps at the next cycle or two they would release the old watch hardware into a new plastic case. Who knows.
I'm waiting for him to say the original iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPhone 5 were failures because they only lasted a year on the market before being shit canned. It's a wonder the iPhone is still a product today with such horrible start¡
Gold is not diamonds.
Actually, diamonds are not really diamonds in one sense. They aren't rare at all, and the only reason they cost what they do is because of artificially created scarcity. There's nothing special about them (unless we're talking about industrial uses).
Gold, OTOH, is pretty scarce. Something like 150,000 tons has ever been mined in all of human history.