I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?
Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.
The only argument for this watch is that it might be helpful for those times when pulling out your phone is just too onerous. I regret that I do not have the type of lifestyle where that is a serious limitation.
For example, imagine walking down the street towards your destination and feeling the right side of the watch vibrate to signal that you should turn right.
If your watch can communicate contextual information related to your intention and local then it will be superior to (1) wearing a socially inappropriate device like the Google Glass, (2) being called out to by a device, (3) fumbling in your phone in order to then open the correct app.
Apps that correctly use haptic feedback should be able to silently and subtly give users superpowers without forcing them to clumsily interact with a product.
I actually wrote about the benefits of this back in 2012 [0], though I was talking about phones and notification fatigue back then (and not leveraging Future Interface style stuff.)
[0] http://sebinsua.com/your-thigh-as-an-interface-from-your-pho...
Cool watch app? Wait, actually that would be cooler and more usable on a big screen...
Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.
It's frequently lost upon this crowd (I'm guilty of this myself) that half of the population in the West frequently wears clothes which lack pockets.
From Wikipedia:
"It is not etymologically related to the word male, but in the late 14th century the spelling was altered in English to parallel the spelling of male."
I honestly don't understand how "female" is any worse then "woman" honest question I'm easily the least sexist person you could run into (ask my wife) but sometimes it seems like no mater what you're still going to offend someone. :(
It would be the same as calling someone a "human" rather than a "person". Like aliens do in the movies. Maybe you don't feel that's dehumanizing, but I think a lot of people would.
(Classicist pet peeve: A word's etymology has nothing to do with its modern denotation and connotation.)
Edit: Nevermind. I Googled it. Star Trek alien.
It's clear that they spent a large amount of time and effort with the haptic feedback and the crown.
But functionality wise... well I completely agree with you.
I can't see anything a smartphone cannot do, better and more efficiently, with the exception of the heart rate sensor.
Some functions in particular seem very awkward to me: I cannot see a reasonable way of using it as a phone or an audio player, in public, without bluetooth earphones.
With mobile phones, mp3 players and smartphones the value proposition was clear, but what is the killer application for smartwatches ?
That said, I would be far from surprised if they sell like hotcakes.
There's a much higher density of tactile nerve endings in your wrist than in your thigh; even if you can reliably feel your phone vibrating in your pocket (I can't!), that's no guarantee you'd be able to discriminate finely enough for haptic feedback to be of use, especially since the phone's orientation in your pocket is not guaranteed.
I'm forever feeling my phone vibrate in my pocket when it isn't vibrating... and still manage not to notice when it does vibrate.
Perhaps I would perceive the signal more accurately if it was on my wrist instead of my thigh.
The early adopters of Google Glass have cemented its reputation as a geeky, invasive, awkward, Star Trek like toy for socially inept young men.
None of the people who have approached me directly gave a shit about who I was or what I did for a living. They rarely even introduced themselves. It usually went something like "Is that the google?...." and the conversation goes from there. My IRL experience does not match the blog hatersphere at all.
And just try wearing it in some sensitive areas (e.g night-clubs, expensive restaurants etc) around the world and see what happens...
The incident you're thinking of was Steve Mann being assaulted and thrown out for wearing his own custom digital eye glass, about a year before the Google Glass developer release.
I also haven't heard of frequent incidents involving "sensitive areas". Some incidents, yes, but definitely not enough for me to categorize it as a trend.
I know people theorize about the mark of the beast and cyborgs and privacy but I simply haven't seen it. It's a cool gadget and I have fun wearing it in public. It's also great for hiking and camping and Auto Awesome is the shit, so... you are missing out.
Having a camera pointed in your general direction is enough to give most people pause. I have really bad anxiety, and if someone wearing Glass looks in my direction, I will be made incredibly uncomfortable. It's the kind of thing that makes me want to never leave my house. Not saying you should live your life based on how I feel, but I think people who wear GG should at least be aware of the (great) potential for making others feel uncomfortable.
IF someone wearing google glass looks 180 degrees within your direction and you get anxiety - that's a personal issue. IF Google Glass makes you never want to leave your house - then you live in San Fran when you shouldn't, or you have an irrational fear.
On top of that, for every 1 person that has an irrational fear of Google Glass, there are 99 people who are enthralled by it. So, democracy and all that.
My visceral reaction was that of human disconnect. I hope I am explaining it right, it is a hard feeling to describe. It is the same sort of reaction I get (except stronger) when someone is wearing those bluetooth ear things. It makes me feel uneasy. The person isn't "completely there." A disconnect.
Uh, I think it is too complicated to explain, but it is a human interaction thing, not a technology thing.
Now, if it was the Hard Rock Cafe in Times Square, its probably a stunt. But yes, a bar is not a place for google glass. Just like work is a place for pants. Common sense folks.
Maybe on the east coast.
That's weird, and initially I thought glass was cool. It's not.
I had this experience sitting across a restaurant from someone wearing Google glass, and it made me realize what a horrible idea it is.
This isn't directly tied to you or your argument, but whenever people talk about about smart watches, 'fumbling with your phone' seems to come up. I can't recall the last time I thought of checking my phone as a hassle or felt like I was 'fumbling with it'.
That being said, I am excited to see what developers come up with for smart watches (either platform) and am interested to see how the haptic* feedback performs.
* I know Apple is calling it the Taptic Engine, so I'm not sure if we're supposed to be calling it taptic or haptic feedback, especially since it's not entirely haptic
Reminds me of a joke I heard:
A local school board was trying to find ways to increase the efficiency of their schools. A local computer programmer had come to the board meeting with a proposal.
He suggested that each desk be equipped with a small button, that via wireless technology would light up a small panel on the teachers desk.
That way if a student wanted to ask a question, they could simply press the button which would light up say spot A17 on the panel. Then using a quick lookup sheet the teacher could then see that desk A17 is where John was sitting.
The teacher could then look up quickly and say, "John...you have a question?"
The Software Carpentary workshops that I've worked with/seen, for example, use a post-it note system that signifies that a student has a question (or is done, depending on the colour of the note). This allows the student to continue trying solutions without holding up their hand looking for attention. When an instructor is available, they can go over and help.
The advantage of a button system, then, would be that you could gather data on which students were asking the most questions, how long they generally have to wait, etc.
This would be fine. better than pulling my phone out of my pocket while riding (which is what I do now)
So to take your map scenario. Here's how it currently works for me. Take the phone out, pull up maps, figure out where the hell I am, where I'm trying to get to, and then plot a route between the two.
Yes, that's going to work a whole lot better on a phone.
But what comes next? Following the route from A to B with the phone held flat in front of me like it's some kind of divining rod.
And this is where rethinking the actual interaction starts making a difference. Having the phone push cues instead of walking somewhere I'm unfamiliar with my nice expensive divining rod held out ..
Another gripe, the "digital crown" is on the opposite side of the watch for me. It could be an impediment of being left handed, but having it on the right hand side of the watch increments the awkward factor for me.
http://www.slashgear.com/wheres-our-left-handed-apple-watch-...
"So, it turns out the Apple Watch really works TWO ways. Apple tells us on initial setup, you can choose to have the watch face orient itself for use on the right wrist, making it friendly to lefties. The watch bands are also swappable, so your band isn't facing the wrong way. Good news for everyone involved, but like most things in life, Lefties will still have to deal with a right-handed design -- the crown will be on the bottom of the left side of the watch when on the right wrist."
"Siri, give me walking directions to the nearest Starbucks."
The only thing I can think of that might make me suddenly need to go somewhere is a message/reminder...from my phone.
Zero minutes and five seconds. The watch has Siri. You say "directions to X". Boom. Done.
Once start walking your route, feedback will be given via haptic feedback to let you know which way to turn so you won't have to look at it again.
(Source: the keynote)
Did you ever use a Blackberry? Tiny rotating nubs are really good.
Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...
How many leave their phone on the house and go out jogging?
Me for one. I run 2x a week for about a half-hour each time in the park near my apartment building. That's about as casual as it gets?
I used to run with my phone, but I recently bought a tiny mp3 player and a Casio wristwatch for running. I don't care about GPS since I know my park, and if someone needs me I'll talk to them in a half hour.
Needing to bring a phone with me makes this watch absolutely a no deal.
Judging by the answers you got, ones who have oversized phones and think that shaving a little weight is worth not being able to call emergencies (who cares, they can use a strangers phone if that happens, just like the guys who cycle and skip tools, patches and pumps and then end up asking people passing them by, and anyway emergencies happen to other people).
OTOH, I don't know why anyone would ever wear a watch after 1993.
1) I like being able to know time and date at a quick glance -- the ease of this is light years ahead of any smartphone. 2) It never runs out of juice since it doesn't have a battery. 3) It looks good (IMO). 4) I irrationally like the fact that my moving about gives life to a tiny beating mechanism. For that reason my watch has a power reserve meter.
Have zero interest in smartwatches though. I have enough crap to keep charged as is.
But yeah, almost purely fashion.
These are nylon belts with a buckle and a small expandable pouch. They also have 2 toggles to attach your race bib too.
They are just big enough to hold your phone, keys and some cash or cards.
You'll see people doing fun runs wear them to avoid carrying a pack for their stuff. To prevent water damage, put your item in a ziplock bag.
It's very inconvenient to run with a phone and almost impossible to play other sports with one.
ME!! I don't want something bulky weighing me down.
But then again, consider that people buy $300+ headphones (Dre's) because of how they look, fashion etc. And they are not even the best headphones out there, whereas this is probably the best smartwatch.
Or that people bought iPods for $300 or more just 6 years ago. Without video or phone or camera. Heck, I bought my first iPod for ~$800 10 years ago (complete with a black and white LCD display).
And that's the 1st gen. In a year, it will be like $200 or $100 for the same thing or the new model.
So, yeah, it might flop or it might sell, but it won't be due to its price.
Fair enough, but i have to say, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here. So apple releases it and suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch. Just a few short months ago, i was reading nytimes articles about the current crop of smartwatches saying "'They’re just not that attractive,' said Mr. Dawson, 'they are all clunky and square'"
But now suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch?
(I understand fashion is fickle, but this is really really fickle :P)
But I have a feeling Porsche has just used an ordinary square panel here, with its edges concealed by the gauge bezel. A watch designer doesn't have room to pull off a visual trick like that.
That said, I've since been reminded about the Moto360 which _did_ have a round screen, so my point is moot anyway.
My impression is that Forerunners have fallen out of favor. The GPS doesn't work all that well compared to a phone (I'm guessing because it lacks the AGPS data a phone has access to). Plus if you're running a marathon you probably want some music to listen to, and it sure is nice to have a phone with you even though it's perhaps a bit heavy.
Moves iPhone 5S - http://imgur.com/kjYf8Tj Garmin 910XT - http://imgur.com/jnXuaQC
One might look for a higher power setting if you are doing an hour / half hour run and not concerned about keeping battery life up.
Once the almanac is downloaded, the phone's GPS track should look much closer to the Garmin's.
If this was a recurring problem then I don't know what to say, other than it doesn't match my experience with RunKeeper on an iPhone 4S.
That's what RunKeeper recommends, because the AGPS using WLAN-SSIDs lowers the accuracy of the tracking.
Before I put my running stuff on, I turn on the watch and let it figure stuff out while I'm taping my nips, and if it's winter, gloves, tights, mentally bracing myself for the cold, etc.
[1]: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21582288-satelli...
GPS satellites have a signal strength on par with a night light's, so it's easy to overpower in a small area using a low power transmission.
It's a shame, but the most accurate Forerunners are the older ones–same for Foretrex, etc.–which are often the ones with the shortest battery life.
(I agree with your point though - I have a 910XT for the battery life - the Apple Watch would be useless as an activity tracker for me since the iPhone 5S doesn't really cope with 5h+ activities.)
I think Garmin forerunner will be to the future of wearables what Nomad was to the future of music in 2002.
Existing MP3 players offered a pretty rough user experience; the iPod was a pleasure to use in comparison. Largely the same was true of iPhone as compared to existing smartphones. The first generations of iPod and iPhone also had hardware that was strikingly attractive and even more important, ready for prime time: well able to meet the needs of their software and of the use cases they were designed for. The Apple Watch has lovely fit and finish but looks portly and awkward, and faces serious questions on the basic criterion of battery life. The UI looks promising, but from what there is to see so far it doesn't look as if it's going to blow Android Wear out of the water. (The "digital crown" looks promising, though!)
Moreover, even without a second 5GB of storage or wireless, the iPod had a compelling "value proposition" that was soon clear to everyone, even if it wasn't immediately clear to CmdrTaco: "portable MP3 player that doesn't suck". What's the comparable pitch for the first-gen Apple Watch; what does it offer that feels like a must-have, rather than a nice-to-have, and which you can't do fairly well using your smartphone?
None of this is to say that the Watch is terrible, or will fail, or will never amount to anything. But the CmdrTaco analogy seems clearly inaccurate to me at this stage.
You clearly didn't own one of the first gen of iPod. Amazing as it was, crashes, reformatting and general bugginess were daily occurrences.
What the iPod brought to the table was a (buggy) new interface and click wheel which allowed you to browse your massive collection of pirated MP3's and ripped CD's much easier than other methods. Also form factor/hardware design was more pleasing to the eye to many.
And yes, I do remember the Nomad. At the time the iPod launched, my music player was a Sony Discman and pre-ipod, I would have bought the Nomad in a heartbeat if I could.
I don't think the analogy is very strong even looking at Apple Watch as an exercise watch competitor, though. Firstly, I'm not closely familiar with the recent exercise watch/widgets on the market, but I'd be surprised if all of them are as unpleasant to use as the Nomad was. Second, even if the UX advance is really that big, it seems the (first-generation) aWatch is going to have other stumbling blocks, like the need to own an iPhone 5 or higher and the need to have it with you for GPS. Those aren't just missing checklist ticks or things which will annoy a minority of technically-minded users, they're issues which affect whether "the rest of us" are going to enjoy using the aWatch or bother buying one at all. (Yes, the iPod originally required a Firewire Mac, but precisely for that reason it didn't really take off commercially until that requirement was lifted.) Thirdly, the iPod addressed a huge market, even if many users didn't even realise they were in the market for a portable music player until they heard about the iPod. Even if the aWatch wins over nearly everyone who currently uses an exercise wearable, and also draws in a substantial number of people who don't currently use one (and that's a super-optimistic outcome for as long as an iPhone remains a required accessory) is that really a big enough market to make for a commercial success on the scale of the iPod or iPhone, the kind of scale Apple now needs to keep its investors from being disappointed?
And for showing that you had a lot of money compared to us pauper Nokia users.
People were really disappointed with the lack of MMS, as I recall.
The front runner has GPS so you can get GPS without carrying your phone around. That's great. But what use is that GPS? (seriously, I don't get it- it's a 80s era LCD display).
The Apple watch has GPS (in the phone) but also gives you maps and haptic feedback to send you along your route without ever looking at the watch. I presume the frontrunner doesn't do that (how do you put a route into a watch without a map display?)
Besides, I'm the only runner I know that doesn't bring a phone with me when I run.
And Captain Pedantic has swooped in to inform us that the ridiculously accurate clocks live on the GPS satellites not on the device.
I always run with my phone & wallet for emergency reasons. I don't use a sports watch anymore (I do have a Garmin), but largely due to their bulk & wanting to focus less on my time/pace & more on my body.
I also am getting sick of Verizon getting vendors to lock down Android phones AND forcing phone vendors to toss a bunch of crapware onto the phones. The only reason I haven't switched yet is because I am on a legacy $40/month/line family plan. I am not a huge fan of iOS - I love Google's integrations with its services with Android.
A lot of what I end up doing is taking out my cellphone to check for messages or the time. It's excessive, and quite inconvenient.
Why not one of the existing smartwatches? I haven't yet been convinced that they're built for my desires.
I'm not really in a rush to make a decision here, and likely will wait some before jumping in (probably will try out the Moto 360 in the short term), but the cost isn't really out of the realm of reason necessarily to me.
The Echo is now compatible with several Android phones as well. Given your description, I think you'd really like it.
If I am short riding, as in I could walk home, the phone still goes with me. However I see no use for the watch. I have a simple comp on the handlebars, maybe I could stick the watch there?
While I disagree with your premise as the phone is there anyway, I see the watch more as Starbucks wear than anything else.
No matter how Apple markets its products, it's always intended for a broad spectrum of users, which almost excludes the possibility that you'll ever see a Apple product that is specialized for some kind of niche
Even just the swimming would be great, cause the price point and being forced to carry an iPhone around kind of defeated the purpose of buying the Apple Watch for me.
Run, swim, AND bike. Excellent.
But I can definitely vouch for the excellent battery life, resilience to water, and usefulness on a bike laden with sensors.
The only gripe I have is that you can have multiple sets of bike sensors but not anything else. That and their approach to OS X software basically being "well, be grateful you're only 2 years behind the PC and that we acknowledge you at all."
Sadly, it might be outside of my price range. It does look like it's the perfect thing for tracking my workouts, but damn is that one hell of an investment.
Heart monitoring and GPS is a nice to have for me. Seriously, all I need is my old $75 16GB iPod nano 6th generation square.
Did they comment on water resistance? I thought they had a photo of someone pouring water over it...
I would hope they make it waterproof as I don't want to have to leave an expensive watch with my bag on the beach unattended. But then I already have to do that with my phone I guess.
While it's sapphire, I recommend that you keep your watch and phone as far away from salt water and sand as possible. One grain gets in the crown and you could be in trouble.
My sport watch is a Timex which is resistant to 100m, but the springs sometimes get sand stuck in them.
It looks nice though...
The reason the initial price is high is because its easier to decrease a retail price than it is to increase it.
If prices do drop (e.g. the 5s) it's because an older product is still being sold alongside a newer one at the standard price.
I'm not saying that they will drop the price of the watch but there is a history of them doing this with the first run of a product. Also someone mentioned they did something similar with the MBA in this thread.
People will spend that much money on the Apple Watch. Because it's Apple.It might seem like a ripoff to you but the price was calculated to maximise Apple profit.
(I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance).
*Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.