The Smart Watch conundrum
I love the notion of a smart watch. I hate how they are actually coming to life.
To understand this, what you really need to understand is that there is nothing smart about the modern smart watch. The "smarts" are deferred to a mobile device, typically a cell phone. And, by and large they use proprietary means of communication. Some so proprietary that the supposed smart watches will only work in conjunction with certain models of phones. That's right! Not certain OS, or certain manufacturers, but in the case of Samsung, you actually need specific Samsung devices.
What is smart about that?
The watch is simply a dumb erroneous terminal connected to your smart phone. Sure, it can still tell the time without the phone in range. But that is about it. And guess what? "Dumb" watches have done just that for centuries.
Oh wait? You can run a pedometer app or other such non-connected apps without a phone near by? Great, because a pedometer that doesn't require a phone is a new thing. Crap, it isn't!
Basically, the modern view of a smart watch is not a smart watch. It is a regular watch with some limited non-connected app functionality which can serve as a secondary display for certain limited functionality if it happens to be in range of a connected smart device.
It is this intrinsic, explicit requirement on the connection to another smart device that robs it of the right to call itself "smart".
I'm not against devices that extend the functionality of a cell phone or tablet. In fact, interaction between smart devices is arguably the new smart.
The fundamental problem is that most of what supposedly makes these smart devices is not actually, in way shape or form driven by the supposed smart device. Alerts from social networks, music streaming, video controls and virtually anything that requires an internet connection actually happens via some other device.
I'm not saying these devices don't add value. They absolutely do. But, by virtue of where their smarts come from they are mind-numbingly limited or mind-boggling constrained. Lets say I buy one of those Samsung watches and a Samsung phone. There is a high probability I'm locked into at least a two year plan on my phone. I lose my phone. Oops. I can either fork out big time to replace my lost phone with another that will work with my watch, wait two years at which point both the watch and the phones it worked with are considered ancient, buyout my contract and re-lock myself into another 2 year plan or buy a cheap ass phone and deal a smart watch that only offered 15% of the functionality it had when I had the "right" phone to go with it.
Things get a little better if you get a watch that is locked to a specific OS (iOS aside). Losing your phone still sucks, but for the same reasons it always would have. You can buy a cheap replacement and not lose a beat. But, what if you want to change platforms? It's a F***ING watch. It shouldn't dictate which phones I should be able to buy.
Last on the list are watches which support multiple platforms (preferably via some open interface or industry standard like Bluetooth). This is by far the best way to go, but not surprisingly the hardest category to find, and still not ideal. Some times my phone is charging. Or I left it in the car, or on my desk. There are a vast array of reasons why my smart phone might not be with me, and fewer why my watch wouldn't. The usefulness of my watch shouldn't evaporate any time it and my phone get too far apart.
There is a final reason why I hate these watches and their lack of connectedness. A watch, even a decent smart watch should cost less than a phone. That intrinsic linking of watch to phone should enable all sorts anti-theft related functionality. Like the ability for my watch to show my via GPS where my phone is, or to remotely lock or wipe my phone. These sorts of capabilities would make such a device immediately more relevant. But they can't do those things if they don't have an internet connection when your phone is missing or stolen. Hell, I should be able to link my smart watch to several devices for the same reasons. My tablet and/or laptop is equally important to me.
So, while I think smart watches should absolutely extend the novelty and functionality of your smartphone. If you want to call it a smart watch, it should be able to perform virtually all functionality advertised today on its own.
Why can't my watch be my MP3 player? Why can't I receive notifications without a phone around? Answer is somewhat easy. Hardware isn't far enough along today. A cellular data connection draws a lot of energy, and a watch isn't big enough to hold a half decent battery. Playing music means requiring more memory which is costly at that size, may also increase size and battery drain. Also means requiring some means of controlling playback, buttons on the side might work, but most people would expect a touch screen, which again inflates cost and battery issues.
Simply put; I get it. I know WHY smart watches suck as much as they do today. What I don't get is why companies are pushing so hard on a concept so fundamentally flawed and calling it something it isn't. No tech device prior to this would ever have been granted the "smart" moniker without standalone data connectivity. These are simply Bluetooth enabled digital watches. It is nothing special or exciting. And it won't be until these devices are able to be "smart" on their own.
To understand this, what you really need to understand is that there is nothing smart about the modern smart watch. The "smarts" are deferred to a mobile device, typically a cell phone. And, by and large they use proprietary means of communication. Some so proprietary that the supposed smart watches will only work in conjunction with certain models of phones. That's right! Not certain OS, or certain manufacturers, but in the case of Samsung, you actually need specific Samsung devices.
What is smart about that?
The watch is simply a dumb erroneous terminal connected to your smart phone. Sure, it can still tell the time without the phone in range. But that is about it. And guess what? "Dumb" watches have done just that for centuries.
Oh wait? You can run a pedometer app or other such non-connected apps without a phone near by? Great, because a pedometer that doesn't require a phone is a new thing. Crap, it isn't!
Basically, the modern view of a smart watch is not a smart watch. It is a regular watch with some limited non-connected app functionality which can serve as a secondary display for certain limited functionality if it happens to be in range of a connected smart device.
It is this intrinsic, explicit requirement on the connection to another smart device that robs it of the right to call itself "smart".
I'm not against devices that extend the functionality of a cell phone or tablet. In fact, interaction between smart devices is arguably the new smart.
The fundamental problem is that most of what supposedly makes these smart devices is not actually, in way shape or form driven by the supposed smart device. Alerts from social networks, music streaming, video controls and virtually anything that requires an internet connection actually happens via some other device.
I'm not saying these devices don't add value. They absolutely do. But, by virtue of where their smarts come from they are mind-numbingly limited or mind-boggling constrained. Lets say I buy one of those Samsung watches and a Samsung phone. There is a high probability I'm locked into at least a two year plan on my phone. I lose my phone. Oops. I can either fork out big time to replace my lost phone with another that will work with my watch, wait two years at which point both the watch and the phones it worked with are considered ancient, buyout my contract and re-lock myself into another 2 year plan or buy a cheap ass phone and deal a smart watch that only offered 15% of the functionality it had when I had the "right" phone to go with it.
Things get a little better if you get a watch that is locked to a specific OS (iOS aside). Losing your phone still sucks, but for the same reasons it always would have. You can buy a cheap replacement and not lose a beat. But, what if you want to change platforms? It's a F***ING watch. It shouldn't dictate which phones I should be able to buy.
Last on the list are watches which support multiple platforms (preferably via some open interface or industry standard like Bluetooth). This is by far the best way to go, but not surprisingly the hardest category to find, and still not ideal. Some times my phone is charging. Or I left it in the car, or on my desk. There are a vast array of reasons why my smart phone might not be with me, and fewer why my watch wouldn't. The usefulness of my watch shouldn't evaporate any time it and my phone get too far apart.
There is a final reason why I hate these watches and their lack of connectedness. A watch, even a decent smart watch should cost less than a phone. That intrinsic linking of watch to phone should enable all sorts anti-theft related functionality. Like the ability for my watch to show my via GPS where my phone is, or to remotely lock or wipe my phone. These sorts of capabilities would make such a device immediately more relevant. But they can't do those things if they don't have an internet connection when your phone is missing or stolen. Hell, I should be able to link my smart watch to several devices for the same reasons. My tablet and/or laptop is equally important to me.
So, while I think smart watches should absolutely extend the novelty and functionality of your smartphone. If you want to call it a smart watch, it should be able to perform virtually all functionality advertised today on its own.
Why can't my watch be my MP3 player? Why can't I receive notifications without a phone around? Answer is somewhat easy. Hardware isn't far enough along today. A cellular data connection draws a lot of energy, and a watch isn't big enough to hold a half decent battery. Playing music means requiring more memory which is costly at that size, may also increase size and battery drain. Also means requiring some means of controlling playback, buttons on the side might work, but most people would expect a touch screen, which again inflates cost and battery issues.
Simply put; I get it. I know WHY smart watches suck as much as they do today. What I don't get is why companies are pushing so hard on a concept so fundamentally flawed and calling it something it isn't. No tech device prior to this would ever have been granted the "smart" moniker without standalone data connectivity. These are simply Bluetooth enabled digital watches. It is nothing special or exciting. And it won't be until these devices are able to be "smart" on their own.
Comments
Post a Comment