[FFL]

Originally Posted by drewprops I have SOLVED this one!! Seriously, follow along. Scates can make us a mockup. Help me with this... it really is a new form factor... Introducing the iHELMET !!! WIDESCREEN DISPLAY SURROUND SOUND Nothing to clutter your arm or your pockets. You won't have to lift your arm to your face or hold a phone to your head. Drop it? Ha! It's a HELMET! No stupid eyeglasses like Google Glass. It's a BADASS HELMET!!! Totally customizable. Can hold 5TB of RAM. Built-in high-quality microphone. I think you see what I'm saying here. Let's get this thing going. Took a space pirate to show you idiots the light. You're welcome. ...

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by AWR Some mock-ups of iWatch for your amusement (in some cases, quite hideous). http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...912540&index=0

The one that covers the back of the hand is at least a creative way of going about it. The others range from meh to fail.

Originally Posted by FFL *cute helmet lady*

That doesn't look nearly as crazed as drews is trying to sell it, but then again, she does have the benefit of being in a situation where wearing a helmet is appropriate. Oh, and btw. iHelmets are already a thing. You just have to fly an F-35:



Or an attack helicopter:



Definitely cool, but even my limited sense of fashion is protesting. Something about never getting laid again...

[Wrao]

Still not convinced about the watch form factor at all, but it's in the air lately so it's worth talking about. I wonder if this form factor takes off, if it'll be watches or something closer to bracelets/wristbands. We're all assuming that it'd be basically the old iPod Nano design but thinner and with curved glass and attached to a strap. But what if it was rectangular? "Widescreen" as it were. Big enough to where text input wouldn't be completely impractical, but still small and light enough that it's something you wouldn't mind having on your wrist.

Still doesn't seem like a 'solution' to anything. If it turns out that smartwatches start gaining traction, I don't doubt Apple could make a compelling one to stay competitive, but I'd be surprised if they gain traction. Still, between headgear and wrist gear, I'd take the wrist gear any day.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Wrao Still not convinced about the watch form factor at all, but it's in the air lately so it's worth talking about. I wonder if this form factor takes off, if it'll be watches or something closer to bracelets/wristbands. We're all assuming that it'd be basically the old iPod Nano design but thinner and with curved glass and attached to a strap. But what if it was rectangular? "Widescreen" as it were. Big enough to where text input wouldn't be completely impractical, but still small and light enough that it's something you wouldn't mind having on your wrist. Still doesn't seem like a 'solution' to anything. If it turns out that smartwatches start gaining traction, I don't doubt Apple could make a compelling one to stay competitive, but I'd be surprised if they gain traction. Still, between headgear and wrist gear, I'd take the wrist gear any day.

How would it be oriented though? When you say "widescreen," does that imply that it would be wider in the direction of your arm than in the direction of the strap? If so, that would be pretty awkward and might restrict wrist movement. That's why rectangular watches are "tall" and not "wide."

If you do go with a tall rectangular watch rather than a wide one, that might allow you to increase the screen area slightly without making it overly clumsy, but I still don't see how you can fit a usable touchscreen on such a small area. Text input? Crazy!

If you want to be able to make phone calls with it, a wireless headset would basically be required. Try holding your hand up to your ear as though you are holding a phone. Pay attention to where your elbow is. Now hold your wrist up to your ear. Doesn't matter which side of your wrist or whether you go to your left or right ear - your elbow goes way up, almost uncomfortably so (certainly not something you'd want to do for a 15 minute phone call). So now you either have to worry about charging your headset AND your watch, or you eliminate calls. Speakerphone-only isn't a very realistic option.

I just don't see any way in which a smart watch could be anything other than a novelty accessory. Take the Pebble and expand the functionality slightly while giving it a slimmer profile. You won't be typing, making phone calls, or running apps on this thing.

[Wrao]

Well that's kind of the point, that it wouldn't be a 'watch', it'd be more of a pip boy 3000, worn on the forearm and marketed as 'wearable computing'. Not saying that this would fly at all, but I think if we're talking about wearable computing and coming up against the reality that a watch form factor is simply too small and restrictive to be particularly useful, even if the positioning of a watch is fairly innocuous, maybe it isn't entirely crazy to figure that something more like an armguard that is worn on your forearm and has a ~2.5-3" diagonal screen is something that could be made a reality and actually be useful, albeit perhaps far too dorky and weird to cope with.

[Matsu]

Made me think of this:

http://www.nubrella.com/

[Mugge]

Just a little reminder that a seemingly impossible amount of gear has already been boiled down to smart phone size. Going from phone size to watch size doesn't seem like nearly as impossible and I don't think we will have to wait another twenty years for it to happen.



Also, while the concerns raised about a smaller screen and extended phone conversations with your wrist being impractical, are indeed valid concerns, I must repeat that I believe solutions will be found. This just reminds me too much of earlier concerns such as "texting on a numeric keypad will never catch on big time" or "touch screens are not good enough for typing". People get caught up thinking that the existing way of doing things is the best and fail to see the advantages of trying a new approach.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Mugge Just a little reminder that a seemingly impossible amount of gear has already been boiled down to smart phone size. Going from phone size to watch size doesn't seem like nearly as impossible

It's not impossible. The question with miniaturization isn't "can you make something that is this small," it's "can you make something that is this small and better for it." We can make calculators that fit on a fingernail, but nobody wants to use them.

We could have made wrist-mounted cell phones years ago (and indeed, several companies did). The technology isn't the problem. It's just that the way we use phones has changed dramatically. Phones have changed. They're only called "phones" because of tradition. They're really tiny tablet computers. Cell phones have evolved into people's primary computing devices, and nobody wants a primary computing device with a 1.5" screen.

You'll note that phones shrunk and shrunk and shrunk, and people used to assume that they would always get smaller (remember the Zoolander phone?). But then they evolved into do-everything "app phones," and then they started getting bigger. Nobody wants a phone that's as small as my old T509 any more — unless, of course, it comes as an accessory with their "real" phone.

I don't think the comparison to the shrinking of giant eighties tech is appropriate. Those giant phones in the eighties weren't so big because people wanted phones to be that big. They were that big because they were limited by technology. But now, those limitations aren't the problem. It's not that technology can't make phones significantly smaller now. It's that people don't want significantly smaller phones. They want a screen that's big enough to be usable while still being pocket-sized, whatever that is for them.

Originally Posted by Moogs Also, while the concerns raised about a smaller screen and extended phone conversations with your wrist being impractical, are indeed valid concerns, I must repeat that I believe solutions will be found.

Solutions will be found to what problem, though? I'm sure Apple could squeeze a cellular radio into a 6G iPod nano, the technology isn't the problem. But why would I want my phone to be a watch? Why would I want to give up my 4-5" window to the world for a 1.5" one? How would a phone-watch be better? These are the questions that need to be answered, especially for a company like Apple to make a watch phone. I'm sure they could figure out some workaround ways to navigate the interface with Siri or with wrist shakes or something, but why? What problem would replacing my phone with a watch solve, for me?

Portability doesn't seem to be people's issue with smartphones. The smartphone isn't becoming the world's primary computing platform by accident; it's because for the vast majority of people, it offers the optimal balance between portability and capability. Almost everybody already has the ability to carry a phone with them, without it needing to be a 1.5" display tethered to their wrist.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Robo It's not impossible. The question with miniaturization isn't "can you make something that is this small," it's "can you make something that is this small and better for it." We can make calculators that fit on a fingernail, but nobody wants to use them. We could have made wrist-mounted cell phones years ago (and indeed, several companies did). The technology isn't the problem. It's just that the way we use phones has changed dramatically. Phones have changed. They're only called "phones" because of tradition. They're really tiny tablet computers. Cell phones have evolved into people's primary computing devices, and nobody wants a primary computing device with a 1.5" screen.

To me, this sounds very much like the reason why Apples previous iDevices were successful. There already existed devices from other manufacturers that tried to do the same, but failed to do it good enough to be more attractive than what came before them. The reason why Apple was successful was because they solved the usability issues that were preventing the competition from being successful. This is by no means a trivial thing to do and that's why I believe that Apple is the company most likely to crack this nut because they already shown themselves capable of doing this several times over.

You'll note that phones shrunk and shrunk and shrunk, and people used to assume that they would always get smaller (remember the Zoolander phone?). But then they evolved into do-everything "app phones," and then they started getting bigger. Nobody wants a phone that's as small as my old T509 any more — unless, of course, it comes as an accessory with their "real" phone.

Squeezing an iPhone into an iWatch is obviously not the answer. You need to find other ways of doing this.

I don't think the comparison to the shrinking of giant eighties tech is appropriate. Those giant phones in the eighties weren't so big because people wanted phones to be that big. They were that big because they were limited by technology. But now, those limitations aren't the problem. It's not that technology can't make phones significantly smaller now. It's that people don't want significantly smaller phones. They want a screen that's big enough to be usable while still being pocket-sized, whatever that is for them.

The reason why people don't want smaller phones (except perhaps an iPhone Mini ) is that the iOS, Android, etc, require a certain amount of screen real estate to be useful. The web surfing experience will also be hard to get right on a significantly smaller screen. And seeing how this is probably the most popular smart phone feature of them all, I fully appreciate that this is also the hardest UI nut to crack on a smart watch.

Solutions will be found to what problem, though? I'm sure Apple could squeeze a cellular radio into a 6G iPod nano, the technology isn't the problem. But why would I want my phone to be a watch? Why would I want to give up my 4-5" window to the world for a 1.5" one? How would a phone-watch be better? These are the questions that need to be answered, especially for a company like Apple to make a watch phone. I'm sure they could figure out some workaround ways to navigate the interface with Siri or with wrist shakes or something, but why? What problem would replacing my phone with a watch solve, for me? Portability doesn't seem to be people's issue with smartphones. The smartphone isn't becoming the world's primary computing platform by accident; it's because for the vast majority of people, it offers the optimal balance between portability and capability. Almost everybody already has the ability to carry a phone with them, without it needing to be a 1.5" display tethered to their wrist.

This is the crux of the iWatch question. As long as the smart phone form factor offers the best way of going around things, then the smart watch will never be more than a niche product, hence those "answers" need to be found before it will work. There is, however, certain things that you can get with a watch that the phone will be less capable of. The following examples are just me using my imagination:

• Silent notifications by gently buzzing against your skin. With something akin to mores code you can actually convey a lot of information this way.
• Much quicker access to information. This is pretty much the reason why the wrist watch replaced the pocket watch.
• More difficult to accidentally loose or drop because it's strapped to your wrist.
• Does not require a pocket of the right size to be carried.
• Can be worn and used during sports and other physical activities.

[screensaver400]

Siri might be able to solve the interface problems, if the service was dramatically improved. We're coming up on two years with relatively few improvements... Perhaps Apple is planning dramatic changes for when Siri officially leaves beta. They surely have a lot of real-world data to use now.

"Go to my newest important email." (VIP)
"What is AAPL trading at?"
"Do I have any appointments for today?"

The idea is to use it to get quick answers to quick questions. It tethers to an iPhone over Bluetooth, and features an iPod nano watch touchscreen.

It could be compelling at $99, and I bet Apple could make a 50% margin on it since it would have no built-in flash memory (and by "no" I mean just barely enough for caching data, the OS, etc).

[thegeriatric]

If they were to add Siri to OS X 10.9 maybe then we would see some large improvements.

[drewprops]

You reach an age in your life when revolutionary interfaces seem to be more about developing new avenues of revenue. Perhaps this new watch will use a gestural interface, but that's still stupid. A bunch of idiots walking around talking on Bluetooth earbuds, waving their arms in the air.

Just delightful.



...

[Mugge]

drew, you're beginning to sound like an old fogey.

EDIT:

Ars has some more design speculations on the iWatch. They are of course a lot more realistic about this than yours truly, but hey, looks like I'm not the only one who thought about using morse code.

Originally Posted by Ars Technica The iWatch would of course vibrate when notifications come in—preferably silently. Bruce "Tog" Tognazzini (developer of the original Apple Human Interface Guidelines in 1978) speculates that the iWatch may spur a Morse code renaissance among kids, allowing them to message each other during class with impunity. Hey, stranger things have happened.

I once read about an speed messaging experiment that pitted a (pre touch screen num pad) texting teengager versus a 90 year old wireless operator and the latter won.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by drewprops You reach an age in your life when revolutionary interfaces seem to be more about developing new avenues of revenue. Perhaps this new watch will use a gestural interface, but that's still stupid. A bunch of idiots walking around talking on Bluetooth earbuds, waving their arms in the air. Just delightful. ...

I know what you mean. I don't even own a laptop. I'm chained to my desk and I like it that way (although having a smartphone helps; don't really need a laptop).

[psmith2.0]

It's true. The iPhone/iOS has changed all this stuff so much. I've really enjoyed this setup I've had for four-plus years now...an iMac at home, and iPhone everywhere else. It's suited me well during all this time. Since having an iPhone, I've never wanted a laptop for an "on the go" computer. The iPhone does all I need, and it's a lot smaller and lighter than any notebook could ever hope to be.




...and I'd continue on with this setup if I could just learn to like the new iMac (or get an SSD or Fusion Drive in there without a big fuss, expense or hassle).

[Luca]

Also, smartphones are invaluable when you have a kid. Like, wow. My daughter is 6 months old now and it's so incredibly useful to have one. There are so many things you have to learn how to do one-handed. Even before I was carrying her everywhere, when we were in the hospital immediately before and after she was born, it was nice and so much more convenient than a laptop.

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by Mugge I once read about an speed messaging experiment that pitted a (pre touch screen num pad) texting teengager versus a 90 year old wireless operator and the latter won.

Yo Mo-fo...............chalk one up for us olduns

[Chinney]

I don't know about a watch. I just don't see a big market for that. Same thing for glasses...and a helmet (sorry Drew ).

I like the holographic direction though. My wife had a conversation with a tech guy a couple of years ago and he was sure that would be the eventual direction of things.

Better functioning voice interaction would also be great, as that frees up possibilities more generally for physical form factors. As I have previously posted, I am already a pretty big user of Dragon to replace typing on computers, and it has really come along, but it is still not perfect. I don't have an iPhone and my iPad is 2nd Gen, so I have never really tried Siri, but I hear that it is also somewhat far from perfect. Voice interaction needs to be closer to perfect before it will really take off.

[Mugge]

One use case where an iWatch would be much better suited than a smart phone would be two factor authentication. You can store keys/certificates on the iWatch which can then either use NFC or simply generate one time codes like a key token, but unlike a key token, you can have it with you at all times. Imagine this scenario:

Mr Johnson is going on a business trip to Redland where spying on foreign businessmen is a national pastime. He knows that the minute he leaves his notebook unattended a spy is going to infest it with all sorts of spyware, but he can't work without it so he needs to put up with this. Fortunately his company has equipped him with the new iWatch sporting a two factor key generator so that any key loggers won't be able to learn all about his log-in details to the company network.

Unwilling to be foiled by this, the Peoples Liberation Hackers orchestrates that Mr Johnson ends up shitfaced and unconscious at a local stripclub where they borrow his iWatch in order to clone it, or something like that. Fortunately the iWatch detects that it is no longer attached to Mr Johnson and locks itself before anything can be learned from it. Since the iWatch is fully encrypted and doesn't have any room or ports where a bug can be hidden, there is not really any way it can be tampered with. Perhaps it also sports some sort of tamper proofing that will wreck it if someone attempts to access it while it's in lock down mode. Now Mr Johnson only has to explain the bar tab to his boss rather than something much worse.

Ok, I don't think that I should ever try to write a spy novel.

[drewprops]

Not unless you want me to come and beat you up.

Again.



...

[Mugge]

Check out this tiny ARM chip: http://www.wired.com/design/2013/02/...tiny-arm-chip/

Now check out this eye implant: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...ble-bionic-eye

Now imagine using the above tech for an implantable HUD inside your eyeball. Now Google can take their unsightly goggles and stuff them. Ok, maybe I'm getting carried away now, or maybe I wasn't being sufficiently imaginative before, wasting all my speculations a mere watch?

[Dorian Gray]

Mugge has helped me come around to the idea of a smartwatch. Not as a standalone device, as he hopes, but as a smartphone companion.

Relatively few people wear watches today (I do, though), so most people could adopt a smartwatch without first removing a proper watch. I think Apple could convince many people to do this. People do dafter things, like take photos with an iPad or make phone calls on a Galaxy Note II.

As phones get bigger and more unwieldy, the smartwatch becomes more appealing as a basic timepiece and notification centre. It might even provide Apple with a nice way out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves by dissing large-screen phones. And it could be a companion for the iPad in your bag as well as the iPhone in your pocket.

Here are some strengths of this form factor:

• It’s always on you. My girlfriend sometimes forgets her phone when she leaves the house (so do I, less often). A smartwatch would solve this problem by being worn, and by buzzing as soon as it gets out of Bluetooth range of your phone.
• It’s inherently more secure than a phone. It’s harder to steal – unless it’s like Sony’s (see below). This might make it ideal for electronic payments and other sensitive duties.
• It’s easy to make weatherproof. It would be great for navigation while you’re running around on a dark, wet night seeking your friend’s new apartment. I hate using expensive electronics in the rain.
• It’s extremely quick to view, requiring not even one hand in some cases (great for use on a bicycle, for example). And by being physically secure, it might not need a lock-screen (AWR’s Guardian link mentions this), making it even quicker to access info at a glance.
• It’s extremely small and light. Therefore it could be carried when you briefly don’t carry a phone, such as when jogging (for monitoring your heart-rate, for instance).

If it has plenty of sensors and some sort of location awareness, and it supported apps, third-party developers would do lots of unexpected stuff for it, like Mugge’s desired Morse-code messaging.

What’s more, the very limitations of this form factor – small display, small battery, small processor – would ensure it could be manufactured at low cost. How about a price of $199 with a healthy profit margin?

Sony already has a smartwatch, by the way. (If it was a Samsung you’d have seen four hundred ads about it by now.) Here’s a little video showing it in action. Obviously a $200 Apple smartwatch would be far…smarter, and hopefully thinner. But can you see the potential here?

[Mugge]

Dorian, you are inflating my ego to dangerous levels.

Your list pretty much sums up what I have been trying to get across. In the mean time, I have also thought of another good reason for this form factor which runs along the lines of your second bullet. In the circa ten years I've had my current wrist watch I have lost seven different phones to damage, theft and great out doors, and ditched another two because they sucked. I take this as proof that something strapped to my wrist is inherently better secured. And seen in that light I'd probably be willing to shell out as much for an iWatch as I would for a Swiss automatic, once the product has matured sufficiently not to be rendered obsolete in a few years. Well, that time might be 15 years down the line from now, but my optimism for this iWatch thing is unabated.

I read somewhere this week that Samsung is trying hard to beat Apple to the market with this one (of course they are) and while I would never stoop to such lows as buying something from Samsung, I am interested in seeing what their interpretation of the smart watch looks like. It's probably going to have a ton of features and maybe a radioisotope thermoelectric generator to fuel it's multicore processor.

[Dorian Gray]

Those Samsung rumours are what prompted my post. Apparently some screenshots leaked showing a 500 × 500 pixel resolution (fairly high, I thought, and weird because 500 is not evenly divisible by 16 or even 8). A big-ass battery (twice the size of the iPhone’s) might fix Samsung’s/Android’s power inefficiency in the Galaxy S, but how would that work in a watch on your wrist?

The key limitation here will definitely be battery power. If it goes one day on a charge it might be marketable (just about), but ideally it would go 2–7 days. That’s going to severely restrict music capabilities, the possibility of built-in GPS, the use of a cellular radio, etc.

I think many clever and useful things could be done with a cellular radio, GPS/GLONASS, and Bluetooth audio, but the battery constraints make those things seem impossible today. Maybe in a few years?

On the other hand, when Apple announced the 680-gram, 10-hour-battery-life iPad for $499 it really did seem a miracle to me. And in 2007 RIM famously thought the iPhone was literally impossible, again due to battery constraints. Apple has a habit of making these things possible with new ideas, clever engineering, timing their launch to coincide with a brand-new technologies, etc. If Apple does make a smartwatch I expect it to be very impressive. It will surely provoke a buying rush.

Meanwhile, that Sony SmartWatch is compatible with many Android devices (PDF), including the popular Samsung Galaxy S phones.

[Escher]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Sony already has a smartwatch, by the way. (If it was a Samsung you’d have seen four hundred ads about it by now.) Here’s a little video showing it in action. Obviously a $200 Apple smartwatch would be far…smarter, and hopefully thinner. But can you see the potential here?

Good find, DG. Wow! The product manager for that Sony smartwatch sure is highly enthusiastic!

It's really sad to see how Sony has lost its mojo and spread itself way too thinly since the days of the Walkman. They've already come out with a smartwatch, before anybody else. But they can't even get word out about it.

My only thought on the watch form factor is that -- for the time being -- it will have to be an accessory for the iPhone or iPad, which will remain hidden away in your bag or a (large) pocket. The iPhone and the iPad's large batteries and plethora of sensors will give the iWatch unstoppable power! And to be honest, that's OK with me. Because I always carry my iPhone, and often my iPad and/or MBA too. That's already plenty of duplication. No need to duplicate their functionality in my watch.

Actually, one more point: Think of the iWatch as Google Glass done right, i.e. something that people will actually wear in public without ridicule.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Mugge has helped me come around to the idea of a smartwatch. Not as a standalone device, as he hopes, but as a smartphone companion.

I've never taken issue with the idea of a smartwatch as a smartphone companion. I'd buy one, and I could easily see Apple introducing one, perhaps to spice up an otherwise predictable "iPhone 5S" event. I think Apple would really like to further the idea of each new Apple product you buy making all your other Apple products better, to encourage people to strive to buy Apple everything so that they can live happy Apple lives where everything "just works." iCloud (in theory) supports this concept, and I think an iWatch as an accessory would too. Plus, iPhone users are a huge market. Apple might have more success taking advantage of this market to sell a smartwatch accessory then they would inventing a new standalone device that's more or less an island.

I think "iPhone + iWatch" has a nice ring to it, like "iPod + iTunes."

[Bryson]

My takeaway from the Sony Smartwatch was: Nice hardware, but oh god the software.

"Next, simply download the Sony Smartwatch software download manager and install on 12 different devices. Then press up up down down left right left right a b to enable debug mode (not to be confused with debugging mode) and then...."

[Dorian Gray]

I know what you mean, Bryson. Any series of steps that starts with “Install LiveWare Manager” (retch) is an immediate turn-off. And despite watching that four-minute video, I don’t have a clear idea of the process to get the watch up and running. There were some manual pairing steps somewhere, and the installation of an app on the phone above and beyond LiveWare Manager (I think), followed by the installation of more apps either on the phone or the smartwatch.

Obviously Apple would make this far easier to set up and use, not to mention give you a better reason to use it in the first place. At the moment these smartwatches are still in strictly geek territory.

[Moogs]

Retro. hMac. ... for hipster.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Robo I think "iPhone + iWatch" has a nice ring to it, like "iPod + iTunes."

I forgot to mention it in reply to Dorian's post, but I still believe that the true destiny of the iWatch is to be a stand alone device that doesn't need an iPhone to do it's heavy lifting. Many of the advantages in terms of quick accessibility and robustness are compromised if you still need to carry your iPhone along with it. The technology might not up to this right now, but all experience shows us that in time the capability gaps will be bridged. Until then it's quite possible that we will see an intermediate companion device for the iPhone in the form of an iWatch.

The reason why I am so sure of this is because it just makes too much sense, not be like this. Right now our iPhones are the devices that we (nearly) always carry on us, but the form factor has certain mobility limits that an iWatch would be better at overcoming. Once someone (hopefully Apple) has managed to get the iWatch "right", many people will probably not feel the same need to also own a smart phone, but might in stead opt for a (mini) tablet as their "heavy" mobile device that they don't need on their person at all times.

Originally Posted by Moogs Retro. hMac. ... for hipster.

You are going to have a hard time wearing one of those on your wrist, but they might make for an interesting iHelmet design.

EDIT:
I also suspect that Samsung will beat Apple to the market on this one, but that Apple will still make the better product. Of course the iHaters and pundits will not fail to whine and screech about how Apple is now copying Samsung.