Google Glass

Will iWatch Announcement Translate to Profit for Wearable-Tech Industry?


Apple commanded headlines this week by announcing the new iPhone 6, Apple Pay, and iWatch. The seamless integration between these goods and services is also noteworthy, as it seems to be Apple's way of guiding us into the wearable revolution one step at a time. Yet skeptics are still wary of whether we the people are ready to fully embrace the geek. Over at CNN, Jeff Yang writes:

The question I'm interested in is whether Apple's long-awaited arrival in the buzzy wearables category finally means that people—regular people, that is, not pixel-pushing pundits and Tesla-driving tech titans—are ready to wear them.

The fact is, while wearables have generated a lot of attention, they're being used a lot less than the fanfare might suggest.

According to the NPD Group and Strategy Analytics, only about 14 million fitness bands and activity trackers and about 2 million smartwatches were sold globally over the 12 months ending this past March. (Everything else—Google Glass, cloud cameras, digital jewelry, wi-fi socks, connected underwear—basically represents a rounding error.) Compare that with the number of smartphones sold around the world: 964 million. That's the difference between a niche product and an emerging necessity.

As Yang notes, Google Glass (for instance) may not have the numbers. However Glass has helped pioneer the path into wearable tech, and provoked questions of privacy and connectivity that will surely arise as wearables gain popularity. Reason TV delved into some of these questions earlier this year: 

"Google Glass: Privacy, Journalism, and the Dawn of Wearable Technology," produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. About 7 minutes.

Original release date was May 16, 2014, and the original writeup is below.

"I do believe that our mobile phones are going to be outdated and are going to be replaced with wearables," says University of Southern California journalism professor Robert Hernandez. "So my end goal is augmented reality, or AR storytelling. This is technology that's emerging, and Glass is a really great wearable platform that is very early, but has a lot of potential to do that."

Hernandez is incorporating Google Glass into his journalism class curriculum next year, and plans to take this technology and build a media platform around it. He sat down with Reason TV's Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss how Google Glass works and its potential capabilities. He also addresses privacy concerns and other critiques of this wearable technology.

"The truth is that we don't have privacy, and in public places there are all these cameras recording us all the time. So if this is going to help you realize and be aware, and be a more engaged citizen, that's great," says Hernandez.

About 7 minutes.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Camera by Paul Detrick and Alexis Garcia.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes live.

NEXT: Girl Tries to Kill Family; Sheriff's Office Blames...Slender Man?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Why New York City Opposed Abe Lincoln...

    "The antiwar sentiment was mostly commercial in motive: Most people in the city felt that conducting a war against the Southern states would prove to be bad for business. Southerners owed tens of millions of dollars to New York banks, New York shipowners provided Southern cotton producers with the means to get their products to markets and poor New Yorkers believed that the abolition of slavery would flood the city with cheap black labor, putting newly arrived immigrants out of work."


    1. Mostly commercial? What were the draft riots?

  2. "I do believe that our mobile phones are going to be outdated and are going to be replaced with wearables,"

    Meh, the screen is too small and there's not many places, including the wrist that you can wear a device where it's convenient, although not very, to often look at it.

    I've heard equally ridiculous prognostications in the past. Now, first of all, I'm a techy, and I often have to laugh at people when they say something will never happen. I had a recent such discussion with someone who bet me that phones will never have fold out flexible screens. Samsung is already planning the release of one. That is actually the near future of phones, is having phones that will turn into a tablet by just folding it out when convenient, not some stupid fucking watch.

    But I remember someone predicting 2 decades ago that no one would ever download software or even have personal computers any longer by the year 2000. Everything would be stored on servers that you would need to pay a service to use through your new same as the old dumb terminals. Well, I thought it ridiculous and it never happened. Just thinking that you can profit off something and wishing it true won't make it happen.

    1. "I do believe that our mobile phones are going to be outdated and are going to be replaced with wearables,"

      Meh, the screen is too small and there's not many places, including the wrist that you can wear a device where it's convenient, although not very, to often look at it.

      I'm of a similar bent - though if it has a smartphone-sized screen I might find it more attractive.

      But, ultimately, there's not much it can do that make it worth having *two* devices (and the associated charging hassle - will this watch last through a whole day's usage without dying on me? Probably not).

      I stopped wearing a watch when I last my last one (2008) and adding the ability to see who's texting me or how far I've walked *on my wrist* (since my phone can already do that and more) just doesn't seem worth a damn.

    2. But I remember someone predicting 2 decades ago that no one would ever download software or even have personal computers any longer by the year 2000. Everything would be stored on servers that you would need to pay a service to use through your new same as the old dumb terminals. Well, I thought it ridiculous and it never happened.

      They're still trying with the so-called cloud.

  3. Watches are jewelry. Might as well be an iBrooch or iTiara.

    1. I bet Nicole would buy an iTiara.

      1. iCock Ring.

        1. But officer! She just asked me for the time and I was trying to be helpful.

      2. And it would be the worst.

  4. I think the plan is for Apple to put it out there, release the dev tools, and then let people create reasons to buy it.

  5. Still don't understand what the draw is. Some of the features would be nice, like caller ID and controlling the music player beyond play/pause and volume, but not for $400. And certainly not if it's something I have to charge up every night.

    1. Interesting article, but it's wrong about several issues:

      Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

      No, they don't resonate with the public. Otherwise, we'd have a democratically crafted ban. But we don't. Only executive order gets anything close to a ban. Legislators who even sniff around banning guns receive the wrath of the public.

      1. Actually, you can tell it doesn't resonate with the public because people are still *buying* those types of firearms whenever they can.

        And it never ceases to amaze me that these people don't understand that the damn *point* of having a firearm is to be able to use it on *people*.

        I don't care if they take away guns for hunting - we can still get food anyway. And the fucking deer isn't going to be crawling through my window at 2 in the morning.

        If there's one category of firearms that the 2nd amendment protects, with out a doubt above all others, its the ones *designed to kill people*.

  6. "Mom accused of giving 7-year-old son Fireball shot, Longwood police say
    "Police: Woman took picture of her son taking sip, posted photo to Facebook...

    ""It was plain stupid," said Officer Kevin Tuck, with the Longwood Police Department.

    "Tuck said giving children alcohol is illegal and will not be tolerated....

    "Denault was arrested on Wednesday, charged with child neglect after she said three uniformed officers and Child Protective Services came to her house and interviewed her kids."

    1. That'll certainly teach her to post her personal pictures on Facebook.

    2. Everyone say it with me: "I will not post pictures of my criminal activity on Facebook."

    3. Ugh!

      God I hate these idiots. I was taking sips of the old man's hooch since I was 4 years old. My cousin and I shared our first beer (with parental consent) at 7.

      Won't be long before the state raises your kids for ya.

      1. Bleeding Heart Libertarians is on top of that.

        3. The state should require parents to be licensed. That is, there is no moral right to raise a child, and we would do well to think of it as a privilege that the state grants and can refrain from granting to certain individuals. If you don't like that way of putting it, I am comfortable with a weaker claim: whatever moral right to raise a child there might be is defeated when the parent-to-be is significantly likely to cause the child substantial and avoidable harm, or, of course, if the parent does cause the child such harm. Those that should be refused a license to parent a child are those who are likely, in parenting, to harm the child. Those that should have a parenting license revoked are those who do harm the child. (In our society, the latter is called "termination of parental rights" because there is an assumption of such rights. Its worth pointing out that I have not seen a good defense of the claim that natural biological parents should be assumed to have the right to raise the child

        1. Huh, bleeding heart libertarians... 'markets and social justice'

          Well, that about wraps it up for that. I mean, insofar as it explains the state licensing for children position.

        2. WTF? WTFF?

          The family *precedes* the state, idiot! The state does not graciously allow families to exist, you bleeding-heart fascist!

        3. I've gone to there site a few times. They are simply unprincipled children. They twist themselves in knots making exceptions for things they disagree with.

          1. I like to visit it as a sanity check when Reason suggests making common cause with people like Ralph Nader and so forth.

        4. ..."when the parent-to-be is significantly likely to cause the child substantial and avoidable harm,"...

          And the self-appointed dictator who wrote this is the one whose crystal ball tells us who is an 'acceptable' parent, I'm sure.

        5. Holy fuck. Bleeding Heart Libertarians is the worst website. It's more statist than Salon.

          1. Speaking of Salon-derp. They just ran a piece titled: Racism and the founding of the GOP: Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War and the real history of the Republican Party which was just Reprinted from "Lincoln's Dilemma: Blair, Sumner and the Republican Struggle Over Racism and Inequality in the Civil War Era" by Paul D. Escott, courtesy of the University of Virginia Press.

            The fun part? It features a picture of Abe Lincoln next to Rand Paul and Lee Atwater. Number of mentions of Paul and Atwater in the piece: 0

            1. Abe Lincoln is still very popular with most people. If they want to associate Rand Paul with him, I say go right ahead. It won't turn out like they think it will.

              1. I doubt very much that it was Abe Lincoln that Salon was aiming to associate Rand Paul with.

        6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! From that second article, this is so fucking funny.

          Back in December of 2011, I posted "Licensing Parents," defending a view Hugh LaFollette had introduced into philosophical literature in 1980: that the state should license parents (LaFollette further defended this stance in 2010; see Note 1). LaFollette is not a libertarian and as I indicated then, I disagree with him about a lot?including the need to license medical doctors and lawyers.

          This guy doesn't believe in medical licensing but thinks we should license parents? What sort of ludicrous mental contortion do you have to undergo before that makes sense?

          1. I don't care enough to look, but he probably hinges his argument on consent.

          2. How does a libertarian support medical or legal or any other state licensing?

            The vast majority of medical care could be performed by walmart employees, for pennies on the dollar. Licensed doctors are responsible for 99.99999 percent of all medical malpractice. Permission from Obama means absolutely jack, in regards to actual performance of said licensee.
            If you think a politician is qualified to determine who stitches up your minor cuts and how much they should charge, you might not be a libertarian.

            1. The vast majority of medical care could be performed by walmart employees, for pennies on the dollar. Licensed doctors are responsible for 99.99999 percent of all medical malpractice. Permission from Obama means absolutely jack, in regards to actual performance of said licensee.

              Yeah, that's fucking nonsense. I don't know where you get the idea that 'the vast majority of medical care could be performed by walmart employees.' No. No it couldn't.

              1. WalMart can't hire nurse practitioners?

                Not to mention that a lot of what passes for "medical care" could be done by someone even less qualified than an NP -- e.g., an interviewer asking about symptoms and plugging them into a computer program.

                Though "vast majority" could be an overstatement (then again, there's no reason an MD couldn't be a WalMart employee, but that's probably not what he/she meant).

              2. I've been to the ER for metal slivers in my eye about four times. They pluck it out with a needle. It costs 3-4k each time I go. 3-4 THOUSAND DOLLARS. My wife could do it if we had the microscope fixture.

                Medics from the army could easily do most if not all of what doctors do for almost nothing. You can train someone to set a broken arm and apply a cast in under an hour.

                In many cases, tech would do a BETTER job, owing mostly to their not having crazy workloads and insane hours. The vast majority of medicine practiced in modern society is ultra basic. Most people go to doctors already knowing what they need and merely persuading the doctor to supply it, especially with the proliferation of the internet. Only when things get complicated is a big shot needed.

                1. "The goggles, they do nothing!"?

                  1. I have a skinny face. Particles come in through the gaps. I know I can use foam seals, but there's not always handy. It's worse now that I need magnifiers. Besides this is over a 25 year career. I've had this conversation before.

        7. yeah, licensing has worked really well for driving, business and so many other things. Of the 8 times (I live in L.A.) I've been hit by cars, all but one driver was proclaimed safe and competent by the state. Meanwhile, they suspend people for non-payment of fines, child support, parking tickets on cars they used to own, tickets by other people with similar names (happened to me) and even when your brother (the dick) gives your name for a ticket (also happened to me.)

          Businesses scam and con non stop, the bigger they are the more they do it, despite licensing, because they are immune to revocation. Small businesses are under constant threat of raids do to license restrictions ( mine was, again because I live in L.A.,) etc.

          What could possibly go wrong with requiring revocable permission from the government to have and raise kids? Really, someone says this with a straight face? Ever hear of China?

          1. And you continue living in LA because....?

            1. It reinforces my libertarian rebellious streak. Besides, family, weather, work, in that order.

              1. Alright, why do so many on this site use the "why don't you just move?" argument?

                Did you notice that the vast majority of content here is complaining about assaults on liberty? The function of this magazine is to highlight the absurd attempts at authoritarian takeover of our society.

                If the options are to run and hide from it, or cease complaining and suck it up, count me out. I stay and I fight. If I didn't, then I would expect that the authoritarians would have free reign and easily conquer more of our once great nation. At least someone is willing to TRY and stop them.

                Eventually, Ya'll will run out of places to run to.

                1. Yes, it is common and annoying. Ditto "you deserve it for voting X pol into power" (usually referring to progs in NYC), where "you" usually means less than a quarter of the population eligible to vote.

          2. Someone in the comments mentioned that all you would need is to get a homophobe in a position of authority in the child licensing agency and all of the sudden no gay people would be deemed fit to be parents. The same could happen with racists and so on.

        8. Apparently the author's response to a commenter:

          "My admittedly idealistic desire is slightly different: that government will be reformed and only act to prevent or rectify harms and that once that is done, people will come to trust the government enough to do that one thing."

          Hahahahahaha! I'd worry more about his brains bleeding than his heart.

    4. So I was talking to a single-serving friend on a plane yesterday, and he mentioned that his son's school does not allow football players' parents to leave after dropping the kids off for practice until it's over (2 hours long). No leaving to do errands while the kid is at practice allowed.

      Being creative, he told his son to ride his bike the 1.5 miles to the football field rather than driving him. The "team mom" sent the kid home with a warning letter saying that's not allowed either due to the dangers of child abduction.

      1. I refuse to believe this story is true. You can't make me.

        1. If you wish to persist in fanciful delusions, that's your business.

    5. In a just world, Office Tuck would be arrested on child neglect charges for giving Denault's children to CPS.

  7. This may be something Apple misses on. IMHO, the watch market falls largely into two categories: High end: watches made for beauty and craftsmanship, and Functional/tough: Watches with an array of time-keeping related functions but are tough as nails-- think Casio.

    Realistically, the iWatch will be competing with category two. But there's only one iWatch. Casio, for instance, has dozens of models with varying looks which have subtly different functions to appeal to specific users. Plus they're water resistant, shock resistant, g-force resistant etc. The iWatch is none of those things from what I understand.

    then there's the daily charging which sort of makes it another device you have to 'manage' like we manage our cell phones.

    I think this will largely be a curiosity and ultimately won't sell much.

    1. Yeah, I can't imagine taking an iWatch out into the field, sleeping in the dirt, spending 15 hours running a boat, no running water and one electrical outlet for 15 people.

      We used to fight over that shit for charging laptops and phones, who's going to tolerate 'oh, I need to charge my *watch*'.

      1. Yeah, I can't imagine taking an iWatch out into the field, sleeping in the dirt, spending 15 hours running a boat, no running water and one electrical outlet for 15 people.

        How do you know so much about my living room?

  8. Nothing will replace the standard computer/laptop until there is a revolution in two areas. 1)screen size and 2)cursor control.

    For 90% of what do, I want a big screen and a mouse. I don't even like blogging on my phone. I'll trade in my laptop for a phone/tablet/wearable when you can project the image on the inside of my eye AND I can control the cursor with my brain. Google Glass probably skins one of those cats, but without the second it's worthless.

    1. Unfortunately, you're not most people. Casual/entertainment tech users are moving en masse to tablets and phones.

      Power users and publishers are going to have to bear the cost of real computing power on their own.

      1. Not really. Everything I've seen indicates that users are supplementing their laptops with tablets and phones, not replacing them. There may be some very casual users who do replace their laptop entirely with a tablet, but not many. Screen size, the ability to use a full sized keyboard, and more serious gaming will keep users from migrating en masse.

        1. Laptop and desktop sales are declining significantly and tablet sales are skyrocketing. I wish it weren't so but it is.

          Tablets expected to surpass desktop, laptop sales by 2015

          1. Eh, I'm not sure that you can draw that conclusion from that data. It makes sense that people will buy new laptops less often if they're also spending significant money on new tech gadgets, but it doesn't necessarily mean that people will be ditching laptops and desktops altogether.

          2. Eh, I dunno. There has been a lot of talk about a tablet slump lately, e.g., Tablet Sales Slowdown Comes Sooner Than Expected or Jeff Kagan: Tablet Sales Slump, Notebooks Come Back.

            Of course I don't know if that is true, either. As in politics, in tech the pundits and "analysts" often have their heads up their asses.

            1. The Kagan fellow has no evidence for his assertions. The BusinessWeek link admits that tablet sales are actually increasing, it's the rate of increase that's slowing.

              1. Kagan's source is this, he just did a shit job of citing it.

                It is of course not necessarily generalizable over all retailers, though it is consistent with other reports released in the last few months (and weeks).

            2. I think the tablet slowdown has more to do with market saturation than it does people losing interest in them.

              Tablets are utterly ubiquitous it seems. Everyone has one. Ok, well, I don't but my daughter does.

              But I think that with the variety and number of models out there, and considering a quality tablet will run you $400-$500, it's not really something you're going to re-up on every 12 months.

              1. I'm not pointing out the "tablet slump" to contradict Womack's point, only to highlight that you need to be careful with the prognostications the press/business press bandy about.

                a quality tablet will run you $400-$500

                Try $200.

                1. Try $200.

                  When I said "Quality" tablet, I'm referring to the larger models, 10", and top brands such as Apple or Samsung.

                  Yes, one can probably get a 'decent' tablet for $200.

                  1. A laptop fitting analogous criteria is going to run you well over a grand.

        2. At the very least, people are going to delay replacing old laptops and desktops as they do more with their tablets and phones. Bad news for those of us used to casual users subsidizing our computing power and screen size technology improvements.

          1. True, as I acknowledge above, but screen size is a significant motivator. Think of cellphones; the trend, prior to smartphones, was of ever decreasing size. Then smart phones came along, and all of a sudden phones started to grow in size again in order to accommodate larger screens, because people don't like squinting.

            Tablets and phones have upper bounds on how big their screens can get before they become too cumbersome, so there will always exist a market for those who want or need a computing device with a larger screen, and I don't think that demand will be exclusive to power users.

            1. FWIW, the proposed solution to the problem is to use a dock of some sort. I've never seen a convincing implementation in practice, though.

              1. This. At some point, the tablet will become the computer (and I don't say this as a fan, just my belief of where the industry is going) and there's no reason you can't have a dock with a full keyboard, mouse and 31" flatscreen monitor, external storage etc.

                1. That's basically what Microsoft's Surface tablets are the start of.

                  1. Judging by the sales figures, they're the end of it too.

            2. so there will always exist a market for those who want or need a computing device with a larger screen

              Yes, it's called a Smart TV. A 6-10" screen is plenty to avoid squinting... it's larger than a typical paperback book. Desktop/laptop systems are going to wind up being the monkey in the middle.

  9. The watch is dumb, as was releasing a new phone that emulates your competitors. This following the flubbing of the maps function. Yeah, they'll do fine without Jobs...

  10. Give me a watch with AI

    1. Give me anything with AI.

  11. I wonder if the people in the run down sweatshops who make these watches earn enough money in a year to actually buy one? Of course most of you will continue with the corporate worship. If apple would just put people before profits they could do some real good in ending material insecurity. I think the solution rests in collectivizing property (ie: apple stock).

    1. Alright, who's responsible for all the new sockpuppets?

      1. Someone who hasn't come up with fresh bullshit in years:
        "put people before profits"
        Oh, for pete's sake! Now we need "serve the people!"

        1. +1 cookbook

        2. Slow roasted on a spit or stir fried?

          1. Damn you you, DWT! Shakes fist.

        1. I think it's the asshole craig being 'amusing'.

    2. material insecurity.

      Oh, I haven't seen this one before. Is this like "food insecurity" but for cellphones and neck tattoos?

      1. FDR covered it twice in his four freedoms. Freedom from want and freedom from fear.

      2. It's 'we want more free shit' on stilts. Same old crap.

    3. Maybe they don't put people before profits because of people like you? I'm pretty sure there's no help for the kind of insecurity you have.

      1. Put me before your profits, because I only want to steal your company and divvy it up among my friends. Because I care.

      2. People who need profits are the luckiest people in the world.

    4. Of course, the people who work in these "sweatshops" make 10x what they could make on the local economy.


    5. I wonder if the people in the run down sweatshops who make these watches earn enough money in a year to actually buy one?

      I wonder if the people making Lambourghini's make enough *in a single year* to afford one.

      I'm thinking - no.

    6. Are these the same "sweatshops" that every other tech company uses except only Apple gets called out on whatever perceived evil is afoot?

    7. Classic Krugabe

  12. OT: Fabled Franklin Arctic Ship Found

  13. Isn't there something comically hypocritical about The Nation publishing articles about how terrible rich people are given that their owner is a rich heiress who inherited a music industry fortune that her grandfather earned primarily through running mob run speakeasies?

    That's all true by the way. In fact, Katrina Vanden Heuvel's family is so filthy rich that her mother actually appears in Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic.

    Frankly, Jean vanden Heuvel?that's Jean there in the hallway giving everyone her famous smile, in which her eyes narrow down to f/16?frankly, Jean tends too much toward the funky fallacy. Jean, who is the daughter of Jules Stein, one of the wealthiest men in the country, is wearing some sort of rust-red snap-around suede skirt, the sort that English working girls pick up on Saturday afternoons in those absolutely berserk London boutiques like Bus Stop or Biba, where everything looks chic and yet skimpy and raw and vital. Felicia Bernstein seems to understand the whole thing better. Look at Felicia. She is wearing the simplest little black frock imaginable, with absolutely no ornamentation save for a plain gold necklace. It is perfect. It has dignity without any overt class symbolism.

    Yeah, clearly Katrina Vanden Heuvel grew up strugglin'.

    1. Yeah, it's wrong for rich people to get involved in politics, unless they own the Nation and inherited all their money while never working.

      Then it's okay.

    2. Yeah, clearly Katrina Vanden Heuvel grew up strugglin'.

      That's why her leftist voice on poverty and social justice rings more true.

    3. Wasn't there a reasonoid with a KVH fetish?

      1. John.

        And I still don't know what he's thinking. That woman is vile.

        1. It's not John, but I can't recall at the moment who it is.

          1. I may have said she was pretty good-looking for her age. Not a "fetish," though, and her moonbat politics would outweigh that for me.

        2. *cough* Almanian *cough*.

      2. Wasn't there a reasonoid with a KVH fetish?


    4. I sometimes think this kind of thing helps explain why so many wealthy people are leftists and despise wealthy people who aren't leftists.

      Most wealthy leftists either inherited their money or became wealthy by being "lucky" i.e. actors, musicians, athletes. And, yes, I get that actors, etc. work hard but I think a lot of them think they got lucky by being born with looks/talent, etc.

      Then you have politicians like Harry Reid, Pelosi, etc. who get rich through legalized corruption.

      So, most wealthy leftists inherited, got "lucky," or are corrupt. Living in a bubble, they just don't believe that anyone can get rich by hard work.

      1. Part of it is guilt, especially among the non-religious. (Rich religious people, guilty or not, aren't as likely to despise the rich.)

  14. I don't see what advantage these things have over phones.

    1. Smartwatches aren't supposed to replace phones (yet), they are supposed to complement them.

      1. Buying a second device so it can tell the first device that it looks good and is smart doesn't seem like a big seller.

    2. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology?

  15. Thank God I no longer work in healthcare (for now). I can imagine all the Doctors waving their arms at me, demanding I get another iDevice working on my network.

  16. First, it's "Apple Watch," not "iWatch."

    Second, it will be a success despite all the nay-sayers.

    Third, the later versions will be even more successful.

    Go back and look at the skepticism expressed about the first iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Same thing here. Mark my words.

    1. I don't remember the iPod launch, but iPhone and iPad were roundly hailed as major innovations from day one. This one looks like a stinker.

      1. I don't remember the iPod launch

        I don't because at first it worked only with Macs but it really took off when the 2nd version started working with Windows - and it more or less immediately rendered all other MP3 players obsolete.

        Same could happen with this - but the difference this time I feel is that few people are clamoring for a "smartwatch" right now. I know I'm not.

      2. The first iPod was famously criticized by one of the bigwigs on Slashdot: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." The Firewire connection and Mac-only aspects got criticized, too.

        The iPhone was never going to amount to much because it was too expensive, lacked a hardware keyboard, had no way to install native apps (at first), was too "closed," and didn't have a user-replacable battery.

        The iPad was criticized for not having a USB port, not allowing a mouse to be plugged in(!), not having a user-accessible file system, being restricted to apps from the App Store, and being "just for consumption" and not something on which to do "real work."

        True, lots of people have not been clamoring for a smart watch, but lots of people weren't clamoring for a phone without a keyboard, either. Or a tablet restricted to apps from one App Store. Etc.

        Many people just dislike Apple for various reasons, and don't grok their philosophy and how they operate. Go watch the presentation about it, and imagine what it will be able to do with an ecosystem of apps and with future hardware. They would not have put all this effort into watches if they didn't think it was a big area in which they could make a difference.

        1. One more thing: the Apple Watch is a "wearable" and in many ways an answer to Google Glass. I think Apple decided a head-mount display was non-optimum because it was indiscrete and rude. A watch form-factor is more socially acceptable and better looking, and still allows a great deal of interaction: visual, voice, touchscreen, the digital crown control, and the watch can also communicate to you with a silent tap on the wrist.

          1. I can't wait to see everyone not looking where they're going as they're staring at their watches. As opposed to everyone not looking where they're going as they're staring at their phones today.

            1. It's easier to glance at a watch than a phone, and that's more the type of use they envision, I'm sure. People won't be reading web pages or watching Youtube videos, they'll be getting/replying to texts and other short notifications.

              And who knows what else? That's at the core of this, and the essence of the failure of imagination of all the critics. It's the first generation (from Apple) of a wearable computing device. It communicates with your iPhone, and with you in various ways (including sensors on the back which have medical types interested). It has a friggin' dev kit so people will write apps. "Of what use is a newborn baby?"

              1. It's easier to glance at a watch than a phone,

                Then why do people eschew wristwatches and use their phones to check the time?

                When the iPhone came out it meant you didn't have to carry around your laptop and hunt for someplace with wifi if you wanted to use internet applications. That was huge, for lots of people. I don't like the iPhone but I see the appeal.

                This thing? It's LESS capable than an iPhone -- the only thing it could have going for it is the fact that it attaches to your wrist... a "form factor" that's existed for nearly a century and is being scrapped into the dustbin of history. And if you do want an Apple product attached to your arm you don't have to spend $400.

                1. Not only is it "less than an iPhone," it requires an iPhone nearby to be fully function. Nevertheless, I predict it'll be popular, and in a few years (perhaps around the time they become self-contained and don't need an iPhone nearby), we'll be wondering how anyone ever thought they wouldn't catch on.

                2. a "form factor" that's existed for nearly a century and is being scrapped into the dustbin of history

                  I absolutely hate to wear a watch - haven't worn one in at least 10 years (and that has nothing to do with smartphones) and don't plan on it now even with the advertised features which, sure, are compelling to some but of little use to me. That said, I am probably not in the target market & I wouldn't be at all surprised if it sells like hotcakes.

        2. Criticism doesn't imply that you think a product won't sell. I'm a Mac aficionado who absolutely hated the ethos behind iPhone and iPad and everything about them, but I knew they were going to sell like hotcakes.

          But this thing? Most people don't even wear wristwatches to check the time anymore, they just pull the phone out of their pocket to do so. Hard to see why people would spend $400 to look at texts on a tiny screen without pulling the phone out of their pockets.

          1. Did you see the video of the presentation? Watch that and imagine the possibilities.

    2. oh god shut the fuck up

      1. Oh, an intellectual, eh?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.