[Brave Ulysses]

A couple developers have released mock up videos and photos of their apps currently in development.

I'm not sure what to think. I want an Apple Watch mostly because it's an Apple Watch and their "next big thing" and I think it will be very nice for notifications, checking the time, and basic functions that I take my phone out of my pocket a million times a day and just glance at and put back in.

However, the apps and user interface look extremely forced and limited and I just don't see a whole lot of potential there, primarily due to the screen real estate and limited UI options available. Not even getting into the limited APIs that Apple has provided for version 1.... the UI potential just seems way too limiting to really result in great life changing results.

Oddly I see the Apple Watch as something that I will more likely always buy the cheapest model of, which I don't think is Apple's hope.

It's usefulness for me will only be increased when they add GPS to the watch itself and make it less phone dependent.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[kieran]

I'll probably be grabbing the "cheap" one to wear as a weekend/activity watch instead of my formal watch.

I think it'll be similar to the first iPhone. It will get immensely more useful once developers can develop directly for it.

[addison]

I can't justify the price even for the cheap one at this point. I like the idea of notifications a lot but not sure about the rest. I also don't want to charge everyday.

[Brave Ulysses]

Oddly, the more time passes and the more that gets revealed, the less I want one.

The exact opposite of every other new product Apple has unveiled.

[Wrao]

Well, I think it has been a running theme with Apple since at least the iMac. "limited" is a word that comes up frequently when Apple enters a new space and there is usually a case to be made that they do come out the gate a bit 'behind' in some respects compared to their ostensible peers. The iMac *did* have no disc drive and did away with serial and other ports, the iPod *did* have 'less space than a nomad', the iPhone *did* have no apps, a crummy camera, no keyboard, no mms...etc, the iPad *was* 'just a big iPhone'...etc.

But in each case Apple splits the gap in perceived cutting edge-ness with an acute awareness of usability that teeters on (to me at least) an interesting point of 'who cares, it is fun/joyous/infectious to actually use the thing'. I mean just the simple slide-to-unlock and pinch-and-zoom gestures were captivating and completely enchanting in a way that tech rarely ever is, that key 'experience' might sound wishy-washy or whatever but I think it really does go a long way towards making up for what might be some nuts and bolts shortcomings in capabilities.

But the main point is Apple tends to start at a point of 'limited' and iterate very competently to where the 3rd or 4th version is life-changingly good and indispensable. You start to see all the bits come together and improve and suddenly you're at this incredible 'wow' point.

So, is the Apple Watch this? can it be?

I'm pretty skeptical this time around, but I admit I was skeptical about the iPhone too (and the iPad to a lesser degree). I feel like Apple has their biggest challenge in trying to convince people to 'upgrade' a watch and their strength (arguably one of their strongest) in iterating gets blunted if the natural rhythm of upgrades for watches is offset by a year or two from where they are operating. This problem is compounded by the price. Expensive watches of the traditional variety tend to be something you only buy once and then have forever. The price is justified in the craftsmanship and build quality creating something that can last a very long time. With Smart Watches the price isn't justified so much as it is just the boring and dull economics of components + margins. You're paying for 'tech' *and* once you do you're also buying into a long game of upgrades that may eventually change your life but that's a pretty hard sell from where I'm sitting.

Again, at least with Phones and Tablets there was a palpable frustration that people had with existing 'state-of-the-art'. Treos and Blackberries had a wide breadth of functionality and cutting edge silicon and whatever but using them was a pain. Meanwhile tablets kept trying to be everything at once and couldn't focus on being any one thing good.

But watches? It's hard to see that same frustration paving the way to where smart watches really shine.

Still though, I can think of several usage scenarios that it would be appropriate and maybe that's 'enough'. Pulling out your phone is easy but looking at a watch is easier and for any scenario where your hands might be busy, superior to boot. (and for any scenario where your hands might be a little occupied, 'limited' stops mattering as much anyway)

With phones, Apple may have been 'limited' in some ways compared to a Treo or whatever but they pivotally understood not to try and cram a desktop into a tiny screen and let the form factor dictate usability. I trust they still understand this with the watch, and it may well turn out to be that same trick yet again where we see it as 'limited' while glossing over a bit just what we really want our watches to do anyway and that maybe that handful of things that it can make a little easier do in fact justify everything about it.

[Partial]

I imagine this thing will be cool in a few years. I'm very interested in solid biometric data. I will get the sport model in a few generations.

Look at it this way... Is there a better smart watch on the market? I don't think so. Having said that, maybe it's just a passing fad. We'll see. I think the biometric data will be very cool in a few years. By gen 3 I expect to see glucose reading through the skin. That is a killer app globally.

[Mugge]

I'm still fairly confident that the features and their usefulness will be ok, even in this first version. What I'm more worried about is that bloody battery-life. This device is certain to get a lot of attention and running out of juice seems like a very real concern. And at that point it will basically turn into an expensive bracelet which is bound to draw much mockery from any haters that become aware of the fact.

If I'm going to buy one, which I still think I will do, it will also most likely be the cheap one. Both because it will be sort of an experiment and also because there are bound to be many improvements coming in the first couple of subsequent versions.

I wonder if there are any difference in battery-life between the small and big versions? Theoretically the big one should be able to accommodate a bigger battery and bigger phones tend to get longer battery-life.

[Jason]

I will probably get one eventually but at the moment, I see that being quite a few years away. I already have a watch I've owned for nearly twenty years. I don't want to give that up for the convenience of not having to take a phone from my pocket. I mean, how much hassle is that?

Three to five years from now, the tech will be better and not have to rely on owning an iPhone to effectively control it.

Clearly, Apple are in for the long haul with watches. However, I just don't see them as replacing or really taking off until they surpass what an iPhone can currently do.

I cannot think of a single current situation where having something strapped to my wrist would be better than having it in my pocket. There is the bio-metric stuff, of course but I don't like the way things are going there. It's all a little creepy to me.

Just my old man thoughts - clearly not the iWatch demographic.

[Wrao]

I highly doubt watches will ever surpass what iPhones can do, but I think we might discover that they will eventually do 'enough' to where our usage patterns shift to where we're not pulling our phones out hardly at all. That is, if Apple 'gets it right'.

They 'got it right' with the iPhone and iPad and the litmus test on that(one of many at least) is how people with $2000 computers would find themselves using their phones in place of that surprisingly more than expected(not in a 'replacement' sense, just a reconfiguration of usage overall).

But yeah, it is definitely a lot harder to think about how it could actually *do* this. The only scenarios where wearables really make clear sense are things like sports usage. If I'm a rock climber I'd love to have a smart watch(or google glass for that matter), or a cyclist or into motorsport or a skateboarder or just about any activity that requires coordination and focus and/or occupies your hands. But those are all kind of niches (enormous though the industries are) and I think wearables kind of have to be 'all-in' or nothing. If the watch is something you put on for a specific activity then take off the rest of the day it's probably not going to be a worldbeater, but if it is something that you put on and then find you feel naked without it when you take it off later, then it's interesting times ahead.

[Jason]

Completely agree with what Wrao says.
That's the likely scenario a few years from now and what Apple are undoubtedly aiming at.

I'll still never give up my mechanical watch though.

[Messiahtosh]

MacRumors claims it has received confirmation from Apple that the claimed price for both the aluminum and stainless steel watches of $349, is INCORRECT. They do not confirm a price for the Edition watch but cite $4,500.