Comment by roymurdock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roymurdock | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The Apple Watch is not a seriously compelling product, nor will it ever be as (a) useful or (b) revolutionary as the iPhone. Apple knows this, and despite what pundits and analysts might think, it doesn’t care.

Tim Cook and Johnny Ive may present the Apple Watch as an incredibly novel, sexy-as-hell product in a nascent, high-value market, but they do that with every new Apple product line because it’s their job. They know very well that the Apple Watch will not see iPhone-like, extreme revenue generation.

Apple Watch was not designed to be a high-growth, standalone product. It was designed to be a companion to the iPhone. As such, Apple Watch success will be a direct function of iPhone success. As long as the iPhone continues to sell in mind-boggling quantities with a mind-boggling growth rate, the Apple Watch will enjoy a growing market as a complementary product with recurring revenues every 2 years or so, in line with the iPhone.

While sales of the iPhone and the Apple Watch will not match up 1:1, the ratio will still be high enough for Apple to make a decently profitable side business out of selling watches to a growing subset of consumers who will find some set of tenuous and borderline-indescribable reasons to purchase one. [1]

[1] http://roymurdock.com/essays/2015/07/apple-watch-form-factor...

When Apple demoed the iPhone, many folks were amazed at how much computer they had fit into the form factor. And of course the iPhone 6s makes the first iPhone look like a toy.

At some point technology will permit iPhone-level computing in a form factor the size of a watch. When that happens, it will require new UI concepts to make that power usable. Apple has started the learning process by seeing what works in the market.

While the first generation iPhone started out buggy and feature-sparse, the form factor was completely revolutionary: a phone with a touch screen and internet capabilities. A mini-computer in your pocket, rather than just a phone. It set itself up for future success as wifi, 3g + 4g networks, and the app ecosystem developed over the next decade.

[Some] will argue that there will be a different ecosystem of apps for the Apple Watch. To that I would say, fine, but what are the inputs, mediums, and outputs of this new form factor? What data collection, processing, and presentation applications will be better on the Apple Watch than they are on a smartphone or a computer? What new and compelling apps are possible from these new IO and processing capabilities?

The only input that the Apple Watch gets that is different from a smartphone is from its physical location on the user’s wrist — a pulse. Otherwise, outputs will be relatively restricted and less useful than the iPhone’s outputs due to the watch’s smaller screen. Who wants to play a game, read a book, or surf the web on a watch? Nobody.

The Apple Watch is a glorified fitness tracker that obviates the need to take your phone out of your pocket to check notifications. Its secondary function is a marker of status, but there are plenty of other things you could buy to signal wealth to potential mates. [1]

[1] http://roymurdock.com/essays/2015/07/apple-watch-form-factor...

I think smart watches will take off when they get good enough to be a second phone (LG almost launched this a couple weeks ago). It makes sense to get the platform out before that happens so that users and 3rd party developers can help improve it.

I have the complete opposite view. Early smart watches sucked because they just tried to be an android phone on your wrist. The most popular smart watch, the pebble (disclaimer: I own one) is also by far the least featureful. People don't want or need a second phone, they want the ability to get notifications, control their music, and tell time without having to take their phone out of their pocket.

So if you could get something equivalent to the Pebble that could also take phone calls when you were on a run (or at a bar, or ...), that would not be a good addition?

I don't think there is a big market for notifications. I think the tech is roughly in place to do notifications well (they are still pretty bulky), so people that get a lot out of that feature are satisfied. I pretty well implied that the tech isn't in place to have a compact watch that can also take calls, so I'm not really worried that early attempts failed to serve that function.

I can already do that with the Pebble as long as I've got headphones on. I wouldn't mind the addition of a microphone for voice input (the new Pebble Time has this), but I definitely don't want a speakerphone on my watch.

I thought that only worked if you have your phone in your pocket?

Yes.

The Samsung Gear S (released November, 2014) accepts a sim card and can make calls without tethering to your phone.

The marketplace for apps is fairly limited though.

I think they will only take off when they get good enough to be the only phone... which I think will not happen or until it happens, some other, better thingammabob will be the dominant tech.

I dunno, I'd be way more inclined to pay extra for a sport watch/mp3 player that I could take phone calls on than I am inclined to pay for a smart watch that shows me notifications when it is near my phone (I guess I still wouldn't pay $500 for it).

I'm not super excited that it is centralized and cloud mediated, but the cross device integration is a valuable piece of the puzzle. I don't want to lose the ability to use a medium sized device for the same purposes, I want to be able to choose whichever one is best for what I'm doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com