Surely at least the Third time?
After all, PocketPC/WinMob were out for years before the iPhone and still did most of the stuff modern phones do. Just not as fast or with a nice UI.
Microsoft is working on a touch-enabled watch despite calling time last year on its earlier efforts. The revelation comes hot on the heels of rumours that rival Apple is working on an iWatch - which were further fuelled by Cupertino's posting of a job ad for a flexible display expert. The Wall St Journal reports that Microsoft …
There were plenty of nice UIs available for WinMo too. Some of the devices were fast enough at what they did, some were not.
There does seem to be a lot of "It says Apple on it, so it's cool" about Apple's recent, frequent and highly successful recycling of everyone else's failed ideas.
If I had a pound for every watch-with-a-camera-in-it (Casio and others), watch-with-a-phone-in-it (umpty-something Chinese manufacturers) or watch-with-a-camera,-phone-and-everything-else-in-it (LG) I've seen over the years, I'd probably have enough to buy an iWatch now.
i stopped wearing watches when mobile phones came about. My reasoning? Why have a timepiece on my wrist when i have one in my phone...
I really don't see the point of a smart watch if i have a smartphone. In the future are people really going to walk around with a computer in their pocket, a computer on their wrist and a computer on their face?(smart specs)
Why would you want a watch and a phone? My phone's in my pocket. The time is conveniently displayed on my wrist watch, which I can see even when both hands are busy. If I'm washing-up, I can check the time, without getting wet hands on my phone. Also when I used to swim every morning, it was good to be able to tell the time while in the water, and not only did I not have a waterproof phone, I was a bit lacking in the pockets department as well...
I do agree with your second point. I don't see the future being a proliferation of different personal computers in different formats. The way I suspect things will go, is that you'll have the one personal computer (which will probably be a smartphone), and then various peripheral bits of kit that connect to it. I doubt the old Pocket PC could cope with running a phone, the logical thing to do with a watch now, is to use it as a secondary display for the phone in your pocket. Very useful when having your hands full, or if you want sat-nav when you're walking, or just to control your music with phone in pocket.
That's surely the logical model for techy-glasses as well. One data package, all the controls can be on the phone, with a reasonable sized screen. A tablet might just be a screen and a Bluetooth/WiFi connection to the phone too. Most people could almost get away with dumping their current PC, and having a docking station run off their phone. Modern phones are already powerful enough, and most people's home computing needs are pretty light. That's the way I see things going in 10 years.
This what I want one for - as a display and control for my phone so i don't need to take it out of my pocket.
I currently have the phone in my pocket, and then an iPod nano on a wrist strap as if it's a watch. But i'm limited by the content on the iPod and i can't just download a new podcast or a music track or similar until i get home.
Also, bluetooth plug-in adapter for the iPod drains the battery too quickly, so i have to use wired earphones.
with an iWatch type remote interface to the phone, i can have bluetooth earphones connected to the phone in my pocket (and any pocket, not just one where the earphone cord will reach). and i can control the tracks i'm listening to via the watch. happy days.
how did people ever manage in the 80s with Walkmans hanging off their belts? good grief!!! :)
how did people ever manage in the 80s with Walkmans hanging off their belts? good grief!!! :)
What about the ones with boom-boxes perched on their shoulders? Heavy, noisy, one hand permanently occupied and the 'lovely' stereo sound all going into only one ear. And you had to skip tracks by fast forwarding. Although at least you could put them down when you started break dancing...
"If I'm washing-up, I can check the time, without getting wet hands on my phone."
Some of us live lives where the only thing of regular time-related importance is getting to work on time (alarm on phone to wake me). Breaks and lunch happen "about then". Finishing work happens "about then". Television programs are handled by my PVR and watched when I feel like it. Nothing else needs me to keep enough of an eye on the time to justify having a watch. As I'm using XP I can glance over and see it is 00:28 right now, but if that was tweaked to read "about half past midnight" then that would be plenty accurate enough.
>Is that "anecdotal evidence"? If some guy turned up to photograph a wedding with a Casio Exilim I'd guess he was either a rank amateur, a chancer or otherwise undeserving of the huge fee most wedding photographers charge.
By 'mirrorless', I mean just that: an APS-C or medium-format mirrorless camera, such as made by Sony, Leica or Canon, not a holiday-snaps point-and-shoot as you had assumed. The purpose of the second camera is usually to avoid having to frequently change lenses on the primary (DSLR) camera, and it doesn't necessarily require the functionality provided by a bulky mirror box.
i stopped wearing watches when mobile phones came about.
Same here. Its much easier on the wrist too, not to mention never having to take it off and on again whenever you're working on something where it might get stuck. I also never looked back.
Still, it is one of those classic "if it works for me it doesn't have to work for other people" kind of thing.
> Why have a timepiece on my wrist when i have one in my phone...
>Still, it is one of those classic "if it works for me it doesn't have to work for other people" kind of thing.
Quite. Personally, I just find it more convenient to look at my wrist than rummage in my pocket for my phone
In a similar vein, I was chatting to my mate who had been charged with conducting a time and motion study in his workplace, but the middle management were sniffy about authorising the purchase of a stop-watch (mainly because they could only use specified suppliers who would charge around £50 per unit). Don't you have a stop-watch on your phone? I asked.
"Yeah, but it doesn't look good if you're walking about the factory floor looking at your phone... it looks like you're faffing around. If you're holding a stop-watch, management can see that you're working".
It's a bit like professional wedding photographers, many of whom would be happy to use a mirrorless camera, if only as a back-up to their DSLR, but they know the clients expect to see some whopping great lumps of Nikon.
After 35 years of watch-wearing, I'm not sure I can break the habit. Last time the battery ran out, I discovered that every time I talked about time, or when something would happen, I'd glance at the empty place on my wrist where my watch wasn't. It's ingrained habit now. I was abroad once, and my watch broke, so I had to do without one for 2 weeks. Even after all that time, I still couldn't break the habit. I suspect I glance at it a lot, without conscious thought, and that gives me a quite accurate, subconscious time-sense. At least I kept finding myself looking at a bare spot on my wrist, having not consciously decided to.
I've read that da yoof don't wear them now. So maybe the wrist watch will go the way of the pocket watch? It certainly will if everyone goes for Google Glass, or some equivalent. Although, even then, the watch has a jewellery element. Once you've 'invested' £3,000 in a Rolex, you might insist on still wearing it anyway.
It's a bit like professional wedding photographers, many of whom would be happy to use a mirrorless camera, if only as a back-up to their DSLR, but they know the clients expect to see some whopping great lumps of Nikon.
Is that "anecdotal evidence"? If some guy turned up to photograph a wedding with a Casio Exilim I'd guess he was either a rank amateur, a chancer or otherwise undeserving of the huge fee most wedding photographers charge.
I know photographers say the best camera is the one you've got with you, but come on...
It's been there for years, since I've had a smart phone that tells the time, wakes me up, has a nice big display and... er... makes phone calls.
Why would I want an electronic trinket on my wrist? If it featured "Holly" from Red Dwarf on the front, I might be tempted. But otherwise, the screen is going to be too piddling small to be any use for me (other than telling the time).
"Can't hang up and check what time it is, and you can't check your watch because you don't have one. What do you do man WHAT DO YOU DO!"
Firstly, I take some advice from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: DON'T PANIC
Then, I move the phone from my ear and have a look at the top of the screen, where the time is clearly displayed in front of my lazy eyes.
I want the watch from James Bond's Goldeneye video game. Shoots a lazer when twisting the dial. Could really use that for rude customers. Either that or the same sort of shock a cattle prod gives....
"What happened to the customer is always right???"
"Look into my watch for a moment...." KZZZEEERRRRTTT!!! "You were saying?"
With current tech, it might just look like an existing watch:
http://www.gshock.com/watches/Classic/GB6900AA-1
It looks like a normal G-Shock (admittedly not the smallest or most subtle-looking of watches, but far from rare). It is reported to have a two-year battery life based on being connected to a phone for twelve hours a day, and features the following:
- Notification of incoming calls and e-mails via the watch
- Phone Finder function to enable iPhone alarm function from the watch
- Warning vibration when the watch loses its connection to the iPhone
- Time adjustment by synchronizing with time data received from the iPhone
- Built-in tilt sensor to detect movement in the watch, while it is in power-saving mode, to
automatically reconnect to the iPhone
>The Pebble watch has minimal features and only lasts a week. It also adds drain to your phone battery. Mostly from keeping the Bluetooth connection alive at both ends.
There is a more suitable Bluetooth protocol, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_low_energy, but it isn't currently support by Android- so it doesn't make sense for the Pebble watch to use it either.
Had mine for a couple of weeks. Charged it twice. I have found switching it off at night (when i cant use it) does squeeze out more life (20 seconds to switch off, 2 to switch back on as does having a watch face with no second hand on it.
Get about 20+ email notifications through it a day, plus phone calls and text messages. Screen is great. It's not so big that it screams "look at my huge watch" but not so small you cant read it.
Oh, and i can play snake on it
Microsoft stop trying to be Apple and come up with something original. Microsoft obviously felt a 'smart watch' would go no where and dropped the idea but as soon as Apple are rumoured to be releasing one Microsoft suddenly resurrect it.
Note to Microsoft, people aren't particularly taking to the Surface and Windows phone, what in gods name do you think they will want windows on a watch!!!
You've put too much faith in the Reg article, Mark 1 2.... whilst they said MS were acting 'hot on the heels' of an Apple rumour, it could also be said they are acting in the wake of their own previous efforts, as well as more recent real products and crowd-sourced interest by Sony, Samsung, Pebble and I'm Watch.
A smart watch may prove to be a slightly more convenient way to read (but not replay to) a text message, or jump tracks, or get a weather forecast, or see a few lines of news headline, or tell you how long you've been jogging.
On the flip side, a smart watch is going to be expensive, require frequent charging, be crippled by a display that turns off to conserve power, and most likely tied to a particular phone OS or platform to some degree.
I'm not at all convinced of the merits of these devices at this time. If someone produces a smart watch which runs at least a month between charges or better yet recharges itself, and is platform agnostic I think I would be more favourable to the concept. Until then, a bog standard watch costing from £10 up and lasting 5 years on a battery is just fine.
A "smart" watch doesn't have to be be all that smart. Really, it's just a remote display/controller, possibly with accelerometer/gyro/pedometer functions for added value.
The phone does all the heavy lifting.
I'm interested, but the beautiful brass Fossil on my wrist is going nowhere until there's something comparable.
Replying is easy. You can track finger "presses" or gestures from the wrist band and normal resistance or vibration tracking. Quite a few prototypes already do. That way, you either use your palm as the keypad (or a suitable surface) and remember the keypad layout, or you use gestures and remember the gestures (sign language based?).
Will they use such tech though? No. :(
It's hard enough to reply on a phone with a large screen. I very much doubt it would reach anywhere close to the accuracy necessary for what you suggest to be tolerable.
More likely you'd be fumbling around with some cut down letter spinner on the screen.
@DrXym
Casio already sell a Bluetooth watch with a two year battery life. Okay, the features are limited (though actually useful), but there is always going to be a trade-off against battery life.
You are right in your suspicions that it might be tied to one platform - this Casio watch only works with Apple iOS stuff. However, that is not Casio's fault, because "At the time of writing, there is currently no support for [Bluetooth Low Energy] LE in the Android OS[51][52], although some devices (e.g. Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1[53]) have compatible hardware." (Wikipedia)
I don't mind if a watch supports a low energy mode that only a handful of phones supports, providing it is OS neutral. Sooner or later the SOCs will support low energy and the OS will support it. The problem comes if apps on iOS or Android or Windows Phone start providing "remote" control layers, or protocols for categories of devices which are proprietary to the platform. Then a Windows or an iOS or Google watch will be crippled if it's not paired with the corresponding phone and that's a recipe for disaster.
For me the compelling feature is likely to be NFC. Having to get your phone out to buy stuff is not much easier than having to get your wallet out, but your watch is already out.
Your list of drawbacks are just pessimistic assumptions. There is no more need for a smart watch to blank its display than for a normal (digital) watch. Blanking it does not save much power.
"Your list of drawbacks are just pessimistic assumptions. There is no more need for a smart watch to blank its display than for a normal (digital) watch. Blanking it does not save much power."
I don't think I'm being pessimistic at all. There have are already smart watches out there now and they suffer this very issue - a short battery life even with a blanking screen. The only other option is to not use an OLED / TFT style screen and compromise on the UI in other ways.
Or how about the Sinclair Radio watch? It was a beautifully made, 3 part, articulated, watch. The aerial was concealed in the wrist band, with a big battery for the radio in the clasp and a smaller one inside the case for the watch.
Not sure they ever went on general sale, or if they did, it was for a very short period of time. I did meet someone who had 40 of these (boxed and never used). He was given them by a friend who was asked to 'skip' the contents of a store room, for a company that had recently taken over/moved into the premises of another firm. He kept 40 and ditched the rest. Well that's the story, anyway.
He now has 39.....
The last watch i bought, about ten years ago, cost £4 and had a nice indiglo backlight. It worked for two years.
Now I have a phone and a pager which tell me the time or wake me up. My gold clockwork watch is for the rare times I dress smartly.
Wearing an iWatch will be like saying "I'm a mug, so mug me".
>Wearing an iWatch will be like saying "I'm a mug, so mug me".
You haven't thought this through.
My date on Saturday did express unease at walking from her hotel to meet me, since she was using her phone's sat-nav to find the restaurant. It should be obvious that using a watch to show bearings to waypoints would be a far less conspicuous way of navigating.
After dinner we hit a bar, and there were a fair few people blokes wearing watches that would cost far more than any smartwatch would. However, this was only evident to me because we were stood in close proximity waiting to be served, and their man-jewellery wasn't obscured by a jacket or shirt-sleeve as it probably would be walking down the street.
MS (bill) was well ahead of the curve with a smart watch, but the killer app for a smart watch is not yet-another twitter reader or iPod, but things like NFC links to embedded glucose monitors for diabetics & athletes and heart-rate monitors. Health/Stress management might be small niche now, but they are the apps that work better on a wrist than in the pocket.
The key is very open simple interfaces
Agreed... 'telemedicine' is on the rise, as are lower cost medical monitoring devices (Lidl had a wearable heart-rate / blood pressure logger for about £20 the other day, my diabetic mate's device for analysing his blood looks like a funky little MP3 player...)
Bluetooth Low Energy is an open standard, but isn't supported by Android yet.
This post has been deleted by its author
Because any and all of its functionality is readily available to hand in your phone, as has been noted.
A watch is primarily a piece of JEWELLERY. Of course it tells the time in a convenient way, but it has a look and a feel and every time you look at it your perceptions about yourself are re-affirmed before you even read the time.
Microsoft watch = "I'm a total geek and I don't care about anything apart from gadgetry even if that makes me look like a dick, because there's no such thing as looking like a dick."
Swatch/Guess/Robot/Moron/Bench watch = "I'm a fashion victim who is happy to pay £100+ for a $2 watch that looks a bit like a [chronograph/timepiece/whatever]"
Tag/Rolex/Omega/Breitling etc watch = "I buy into the brand and wish to be identified with it in some way as a discerning consumer i.e. a tosser with more money than sense"
Seiko watch = "I appreciate true horological achievment and the fine balance between engineering excellence, master craftsmanship and value".
While smart watches continue to look like shit no-one will buy them. So Apple may just have a chance to get this one right, as that is something they do well.
>There IS no compelling reason for a smart watch.
Given the very broad range of possible devices that the term 'smartwatch' might encompass, that is a sweeping statement.
There might be no compelling reason for you maybe, but it some situations it makes sense: It is not always convenient to reach into your pocket for your phone... people who make long commutes on heavily over-crowded public transport systems (such are to be found in Tokyo, for example) would find it convenient to know which messages/incoming calls they can ignore without fishing out their phone. The functions available on the Casio G-Shock Bluetooth watch would be useful to me- activate the phone's alarm so it can be located, inform of incoming messages, and warn the wearer if the phone moves beyond a certain radius.
It is not hard to have a conventional-looking watch use a hand to point towards a GPS waypoint- this would give the user the convenience of a hands-free navigation system.
I have one of these gathering dust in a drawer somewhere, I never learned to program it unfortunately.
It has some very useful features though and a wireless connection (not standard bluetooth, but useable with heart rate monitors, light switches etc) and with decent battery too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/05/chronos_ez430/
I also have a Chronos eZ430 sitting on a shelf gathering dust, I did wear it as a normal watch for a while as it has a nice asthetic look to it but it kept randomly resetting and I never learned to program it properly too, kinda feel I shoulda persisted with it as I wanted to use its wireless features.
On one hand, the idea of a "smartwatch" sounds really useful - as someone has already said, medical monitoring, I'm also thinking sports...
... on the other hand... "all your biodata are belong to us!"
Or worse, a little clippy-esque heart pops up and spouts something like "It looks like you're working out! Shall I play you some work-out music?"
...I don't wear one anymore despite having a collection of over 40 game wrist watches (which includes Pac-Man, Tetris, Mario, Donkey Kong, Simpsons, Street Fighter II, Sonic The Hedgehog etc.) and various unusual gadget watches including a Casio one with a built-in IR temperature sensor and one shaped like a Sega Game Gear, because telling the time isn't such an important thing for me anymore plus I have a mobile phone with a clock on it ;)
Few reasons:
1) Battery life: nobody wants to charge a wrist watch every day.
2) Fashion: a watch is a fashion accessory, you're also competing with dedicated watchmakers such as Swatch, Casio, Rolex, Rado etc.
3) Overlap of function: Smartphones are already ubiquitous and what you can do on a smartphone can't be done on a watch... due to the small screen size.
So... unless there is a quantum leap in battery technology or cost-effective miniature holographic projectors in the next few years, smartwatches are dead on arrival.
P.S: It's always good to see Microsoft burning more money.