I like this -
"The first all-new device during his tenure, the Apple Watch, is not yet a mega hit."
- as if some day it just is going to be a mega hit.
And as battery life increases, bluetooth tech gets better reach, wifi can last longer on it, and cpu/memory can handle more things right on the device, its usability will only get better.
What did you like about that statement? Your interpretation made it sound like you didn't agree with it.
Watch isn't even primarily a watch - it's an iPhone remote. And that's getting into rarefied meta-product territory.
So unlike the iPhone and the home computer, both of which have obvious use cases, Watch is still trying to define a compelling reason for existing.
But this just highlights the current Apple problem. Cook designs products using a very simple heuristic - smaller, bigger, thinner, more colours: basically good enough.
Jobs used to use a different heuristic - magical, original, creative, obviously useful, with world-beating production values.
It's a completely different approach. And you can see that in Watch.
Watch has no magic. It's good enough - barely, more or less. But that's all it is.
And if you're aiming for good enough instead of magical, it's too easy to fall short and end up with not quite good enough - which is where many Apple buyers are feeling the current product lines are heading.
I'm not sure I follow. A wearable watch will have the biggest screen and better battery life combo than any other kind of practical wearable device I can think of (e.g. when not strapping a 3" screen and a battery pack the size of a Zippo on you and calling it a wearable).
>So unlike the iPhone and the home computer, both of which have obvious use cases, Watch is still trying to define a compelling reason for existing.
If not other things, Fitness/health/medical services would be a killer reason for existing.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...
You don't have to convince the "populous", just enough tens of millions, and it would be a huge profit center.
And you don't have to convince them about exercise being fun or anything similar either -- just that not dying from heart attack and knowing your glucose levels and such is fun...
(There are 30 million people with diabetes in the US alone for example).
It's okay. You're not an innovator. You're not a visionary. You can't see the horizon. You're probably fascinated by shiny objects; trapped in the superficial glaze, unable to comprehend the substrate.
The basic idea, that you don't seem to comprehend, is that it's not about the watch functionality at all. It's about having a 24/7 gizmo on you, with appropriate sensors to read medical data, movement etc, with enough screen and size to do a ton of things, from home automation to payments, etc, and eventually, and with
Here are things a smartwatch already does better or will eventually (as battery capacities get up to it) do better, with less bulk and faster access than a smartphone.
24/7 health monitoring Home automation controls Remote control (for tv, hifi, etc) Wireless Payments Panic button (health issue, crime, rape, whatever alert) Total phone operation (through voice recognition + wireless headphones) Navigation Music player (again, wireless headphones + voice/screen control) Show urgent notifications etc etc... ...tell the time.
It's a form factor common from the past notion of the watch, and simultaneously perfect for being always on you, always monitoring, small and non intrusive, and still having a large enough space for screen and battery.
>It's okay. You're not an innovator. You're not a visionary. You can't see the horizon. You're probably fascinated by shiny objects; trapped in the superficial glaze, unable to comprehend the substrate.
It's ok. You're not sophisticated. You're rude. You think in slogans. You can't see anything beyond an object being shiny or being made by Apple. You're probably fascinated by your own superficial analysis, and think your use cases are the measure of everything.
The watch format is a dead end.
The user benefit of the iPhone was obvious. The user benefit of a wearable watch is not obvious at all. As soon as you call the product a "watch" you're constraining the possible design and the user expectations, and also competing with hundreds of years of history.
As for health - for now, FitBit does it better.
A permanent on-wrist health lab with medical record sharing would be amazing, but the technology for that is a long way away.
Meanwhile Pokemon Go has done a lot more for health than any wearable has.
The tone of the sentence seemed to me to imply that some day the Apple Watch would be a hit, but I'm skeptical.
https://twitter.com/asymco/status/753226197442654208
Puts things into perspective.