Hacker News Reader

Comment by yamtaddle | Hacker News Reader

Nothing's replacing the Smartphone unless it's got a camera in the same ballpark of quality and usability. Several use cases for a smartphone—including a couple major ones—don't really work with a watch, mostly for camera-related reasons. If it's not good as a camera, it's also not good as a scanner replacement, not good for remote check deposit, not good for things like the Measure app (or any other AR stuff), and so on.

For a while I thought I'd go all-watch if they ever released a standalone watch, but paying more attention to how I use my phone, there's just no way. I'd just have to buy a separate camera, then I'd have two things to carry, plus it'd be much worse (since it's not like standalone cameras tend to have e.g. built-in text recognition). I think that's likely true for most people.

View on HN

Cameras are doubtlessly vital to some users, but almost entirely superfluous to others. I can count the number of times per year I use the camera on my phone with just my fingers.

If those "others" are a small minority, then the parent's point still stands.

I don't think we're that small of a minority. Quite a few people don't actively use any social media, and taking memento photos is an unusual activity for many people, done mostly when going on rare vacations if at all. That leaves purely utilitarian photo taking, like uploading checks or taking a picture to help you remember where you parked your car.

Those people perhaps don't buy fancy smartphones though, but more like "purely utilitarian" ones? Whereas this subthread is about the possibility of the Apple Watch replacing the smartphone for iPhone users...

No, a lot of people like I describe buy iphones simply because they're fashionable. If fashions change, they could be well served by a smart watch instead.

I think for in the range of 98% of smartphone users the phone is the least useful feature. In truth they’re often really crap phones and my old flip phone had better all around phone quality and utility. But at this point I feel annoyed when I have to speak to a person. If I were meant to speak to people I wouldn’t have been born an engineer.

> I think for in the range of 98% of smartphone users the phone is the least useful feature.

Part of the reason this number's so high is that if a phone feature is really important to you, you're liable to get a standalone VoIP line and a headset to go with whatever handset you have rather than using a smartphone.

Yeah certainly the fact they’re universally bad phones makes them less useful as a phone, and phone phones are better at being phones.

But I would also hold that phones generally suck, but that’s opinion.

> But I would also hold that phones generally suck, but that’s opinion.

Technically compared to e.g. internet-native voice communication, or you just think that remote voice communication is bad?

Voice is for jocks.

I agree with you. I guess the question is the overlap / and or market.

I don’t know about anything at the scale of Apple.

But my simplified imagination of any product is: focus on core customer/demo, once you’ve captured a significant portion, expand.

But I also wonder if at apples level, if the customer is “everyone” which I always think of as folly for most business.

Example (which may partially disprove this): I know some people in developing countries, who consider an iPad an essential device. (They have a cheap android phone) and for them, it’s much more valuable than a computer.

(Though, the people I am thinking of are “high” earners in their country, making 20-40k a year. Even if an iPad is almost double the cost.)

But there’s no technical reason a stand-alone watch couldn’t be an option for those who actually want it.

Sure, but

> The Apple Watch could be the next big thing that replaces the smartphone

I simply don't think is true.

You might not, but I have gone entire days with only my LTE Apple watch.

I can take calls, play music (wirelessly through my airpods), crudely reply to messages (it's only a little awkward, surprisingly usable) and pay for things without my phone.

For web-browsing, I don't need to do that all the time.

I use my camera a sum total of twice a month.

I don't think I'm special.

There are people who'd be able to get by with a watch, but as an alternate perspective:

- 99% of my messaging is through text, the other 1% is video calling - Most of my causal web browsing is on my phone - I've taken thousands of pictures on my phone in the last year.

Most of my friends are like this as well.

I’m sure thats true, in fact, I’m certain of it.

most of the use of my phone is mobile web-browsing.

I can honestly live without that sometimes, especially as phones are getting large enough that you might as well have a tablet that you lug around sometimes.

And it indeed exists: PineTime.

I don’t think either can do it alone, but Watch + [ AR glasses or tablet + earbuds ] could more directly replace a smartphone.

Yeah, AR glasses are what will actually be the Next Smartphone, as far as rapidly attaining ubiquity. If they can fix the bulkiness and battery life issues, anyway. And sure, decent chance that'll involve tethering the glasses to some kind of watch where the actual brains and long-range radios live. Or to a smartphone or tablet that you can leave in a pocket or bag all the time (why wear a watch when the AR glasses could just paint a fake one on your wrist?)

But won't people feel uncomfortable being seen with AR glasses, at least for the next few years? They would have to be completely transparent, no impediment to eye contact, very small and fashionable, and so incredibly useful people would be willing to deal with any judgemental glares they got.

Depends what kind of form factor they can get them to. I've got a pair of these, and they look close enough to regular Ray-Bans that nobody realizes there's cameras on them: https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/ray-ban-stories

Smartphones drew the same judgmental glares for a few years. If you were holding them up to use them, people'd think you were recording and would be irritated or upset. If you were recording, they're really be unhappy with you. People talking on or looking at cell phones in public at all were usually coded as "asshole" in basically all media in the 90s and 00s, and that pretty much reflected popular opinion.

By the early 20-teens, though, all that was just normal and everyone was doing it.

I am more thinking the next 10 years than 30.

AR glasses have issues with UI, comfort, style, and durability even if you fix the more core issues of weight, battery life, etc.

Until they have rainbows end tech I don’t think this will be true. Wearing glasses is a bug, not a feature.

This is likely, but I'm willing to bet any Apple AR device will require an iPhone for the foreseeable future too though

What does any of that have to do with Apple requiring people to have an iPhone to use their watch? Maybe you don't want an iPhone and are satisfied with the functionality of the watch alone. Maybe you have one of the zillions of Android phones out there and don't want an iPhone for that reason. Literally no other smart watch that I know of requires that you have a phone of any kind, so I just don't see any reason for Apple to require it with their watch.

I don’t use any of those features and the smartphone has become garbage for web browsing so I’m not sure I need one at all.

I'm sorry your comment doesn't apply to 99% of the general population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com