Can Apple succeed with a smartwatch?
Well sure they *can* theoretically.
Many people say that just because Apple throws its name on it, it will be a success, even if it isn't substantively different than the competition. But that is a horrendously flawed argument. Rebuttal; Apple TV and Mac-Mini.
Saw a Twitter post today that said that smartphones, if clunky, were still fundamentally useful pre-iPhone. But that the same can't be said of smart watches. And I agree. Black Berry's were compellingly superior to feature phones. Apps were delivered in a superior capacity. Email was doable. Texting was superior. Apple simply took those things and improved on them. It improved upon them substantially, but nonetheless, they entered into a market with a viable alternative.
"Smart watches", as I have complained extensively about in the past are not even remotely in the same boat. Smart watches are crap. Starting with my first gripe that they aren't even "smart". They are dumb displays (and that is a proper technical term for the function they serve... not just an anecdotal summary... look up "dumb terminal" if you doubt me) driven by the smarts in your smart phone or tablet. In other words... I'll consider a device to be a true "smart" watch when virtually all functionality (aside from logical sync related notifications and functionality) are driven purely by the processor on the watch itself. This would also require a dedicated WiFi or even cellular connection in the watch (in addition perhaps to the ability to piggy back off the data connection in your phone).
The other problem with smart watch is battery life. People can live with the need to charge a phone regularly... because that problem has been around as long as cell phones have been around. As long as watches have been around they have been able to run years on a single battery. They are water resistant. They are rarely a hindrance.
I'm not saying a smart watch needs a battery life measured in years. But it does need to last at least a week. It isn't a device as central to people's lives as their phone, and so a trend won't be born until the device can survive in a world where it gets perpetually less attention than a phone. And how often you need to charge it is one of the biggest points there. If you're frequently forgetting to charge the device and it is never charged when you need it, you'll discard it and never replace it in short order. If it can last at least a week, then I think, for most people who already use watches, they'll find it gets enough use. They'll probably also remember to charge it some time before the battery dies and then it will stand a chance of becoming an essential part of their digital lives. For everyone the magic battery life for usability will be different, but what matters is that the life is long enough that it meets that requirement for most users. And I think a week is a good starting estimate to get there.
I'm also not saying it needs to be water proof, or even sustain prolonged exposure to water. But my watch is on my wrist. My wrist gets rained on. It gets wet when I wash my hands. And yeah, it may, without thinking be plunged for short periods in shallow depths of water. If a smart watch can't stand that kind of "abuse" it isn't worth buying. Also, impact resistance. My wrists move around a lot more than my phones do. They bump into walls on occasion. They need to survive those sorts of daily abuses as well.
And if those requirements aren't met the third one won't be either. If my watch is always dead, or needs to be babied, it is a hindrance to the rest of my lifestyle. And that is totally unacceptable from a timepiece. These combined with a need for a truly "smart" watch are some of the hurdles an Apple smart watch would need to be overcome to be a success.
Outside of feasibility of the device on the whole... it needs to be priced better than the competition. The reason people often cite Apple as having a magic is because of the success of the iPad where Microsoft had failed at tablets for years. But the success of the iPad was exactly related to similar things as above. It was a proper dedicated computing device, it offered battery life that actually exceeded its average competing product (average iPad battery life > average laptop battery life) and prices started WELL below premium competing computing products. That isn't having the magic touch... THAT is the perfect recipe for success.
Frankly, I don't believe the state of small gadgets is at a point where Apple can deliver on both the quality and cost concerns the way it was able to with the iPad. I'm not even sure the technology is really there today to make it possible. To get a reasonably powerful processor, BT, WiFi, storage, touch screen and a battery than can run all of those things for a week in a package small enough to fit comfortable on your wrist with concession made for appearance sake? I don't think cost is even the concern for a mass produced consumer product meeting those requirements. And I even left out cellular access for viability reasons.
The proof is perhaps in the competition. It stands to reason that if the competition is only able to put processors powerful enough to basically drive the UI, serve as a dumb terminal and perform some very light computing tasks and still not be able to get more than a day or two out of the battery, let alone getting it into a product that they can charge less than $100 for... it stands to reason that the industry just can't produce the necessary components.
But, maybe Apple will somehow pull off another moment like they did with the original iPad and prove everyone wrong.
My prediction; if Apple unveils a smart watch today, and it is seen as revolutionary, it will still fail on two of those points. Cost and "smarts". It will be a slave device that requires a smart phone (perhaps even explicitly an iPhone) to be truly useful. And it will cost $250+. And, I expect that IF they do release such a watch, battery life will be the one thing they either nail, or at least do better than the competition and they will drive this point home until you're sick of it. I think Apple is well aware that battery life is probably the most important factor in getting such a product truly off the ground, and even if it is substantively more expensive than the competition, if it gets the battery life right, it can steal customers away from other devices until the tech elsewhere catches up.
Many people say that just because Apple throws its name on it, it will be a success, even if it isn't substantively different than the competition. But that is a horrendously flawed argument. Rebuttal; Apple TV and Mac-Mini.
Saw a Twitter post today that said that smartphones, if clunky, were still fundamentally useful pre-iPhone. But that the same can't be said of smart watches. And I agree. Black Berry's were compellingly superior to feature phones. Apps were delivered in a superior capacity. Email was doable. Texting was superior. Apple simply took those things and improved on them. It improved upon them substantially, but nonetheless, they entered into a market with a viable alternative.
"Smart watches", as I have complained extensively about in the past are not even remotely in the same boat. Smart watches are crap. Starting with my first gripe that they aren't even "smart". They are dumb displays (and that is a proper technical term for the function they serve... not just an anecdotal summary... look up "dumb terminal" if you doubt me) driven by the smarts in your smart phone or tablet. In other words... I'll consider a device to be a true "smart" watch when virtually all functionality (aside from logical sync related notifications and functionality) are driven purely by the processor on the watch itself. This would also require a dedicated WiFi or even cellular connection in the watch (in addition perhaps to the ability to piggy back off the data connection in your phone).
The other problem with smart watch is battery life. People can live with the need to charge a phone regularly... because that problem has been around as long as cell phones have been around. As long as watches have been around they have been able to run years on a single battery. They are water resistant. They are rarely a hindrance.
I'm not saying a smart watch needs a battery life measured in years. But it does need to last at least a week. It isn't a device as central to people's lives as their phone, and so a trend won't be born until the device can survive in a world where it gets perpetually less attention than a phone. And how often you need to charge it is one of the biggest points there. If you're frequently forgetting to charge the device and it is never charged when you need it, you'll discard it and never replace it in short order. If it can last at least a week, then I think, for most people who already use watches, they'll find it gets enough use. They'll probably also remember to charge it some time before the battery dies and then it will stand a chance of becoming an essential part of their digital lives. For everyone the magic battery life for usability will be different, but what matters is that the life is long enough that it meets that requirement for most users. And I think a week is a good starting estimate to get there.
I'm also not saying it needs to be water proof, or even sustain prolonged exposure to water. But my watch is on my wrist. My wrist gets rained on. It gets wet when I wash my hands. And yeah, it may, without thinking be plunged for short periods in shallow depths of water. If a smart watch can't stand that kind of "abuse" it isn't worth buying. Also, impact resistance. My wrists move around a lot more than my phones do. They bump into walls on occasion. They need to survive those sorts of daily abuses as well.
And if those requirements aren't met the third one won't be either. If my watch is always dead, or needs to be babied, it is a hindrance to the rest of my lifestyle. And that is totally unacceptable from a timepiece. These combined with a need for a truly "smart" watch are some of the hurdles an Apple smart watch would need to be overcome to be a success.
Outside of feasibility of the device on the whole... it needs to be priced better than the competition. The reason people often cite Apple as having a magic is because of the success of the iPad where Microsoft had failed at tablets for years. But the success of the iPad was exactly related to similar things as above. It was a proper dedicated computing device, it offered battery life that actually exceeded its average competing product (average iPad battery life > average laptop battery life) and prices started WELL below premium competing computing products. That isn't having the magic touch... THAT is the perfect recipe for success.
Frankly, I don't believe the state of small gadgets is at a point where Apple can deliver on both the quality and cost concerns the way it was able to with the iPad. I'm not even sure the technology is really there today to make it possible. To get a reasonably powerful processor, BT, WiFi, storage, touch screen and a battery than can run all of those things for a week in a package small enough to fit comfortable on your wrist with concession made for appearance sake? I don't think cost is even the concern for a mass produced consumer product meeting those requirements. And I even left out cellular access for viability reasons.
The proof is perhaps in the competition. It stands to reason that if the competition is only able to put processors powerful enough to basically drive the UI, serve as a dumb terminal and perform some very light computing tasks and still not be able to get more than a day or two out of the battery, let alone getting it into a product that they can charge less than $100 for... it stands to reason that the industry just can't produce the necessary components.
But, maybe Apple will somehow pull off another moment like they did with the original iPad and prove everyone wrong.
My prediction; if Apple unveils a smart watch today, and it is seen as revolutionary, it will still fail on two of those points. Cost and "smarts". It will be a slave device that requires a smart phone (perhaps even explicitly an iPhone) to be truly useful. And it will cost $250+. And, I expect that IF they do release such a watch, battery life will be the one thing they either nail, or at least do better than the competition and they will drive this point home until you're sick of it. I think Apple is well aware that battery life is probably the most important factor in getting such a product truly off the ground, and even if it is substantively more expensive than the competition, if it gets the battery life right, it can steal customers away from other devices until the tech elsewhere catches up.
Comments
Post a Comment