We are all shooting in the dark regarding what this wearable thing is going to look like and what it will do. Assuming it even exists, what will make it compelling to a lot of people? Why did Apple make it? Who are they selling it to? How will fit in to the Apple ecosystem?
Maybe it’s because people who buy giant iPhones will want a satellite device that shows them their incoming messages. But I don’t think so. That’s been done before and so far it’s proven to be not very compelling. I think the iWatch just might be a little bit head-tilting and a little bit eyebrow-raising.
John Gruber writes:
But there will be something, or several somethings, that will cause it to be misunderstood by those who are only able to frame new creations in the context of what came before them. Apple’s watch won’t fit in an existing mold. It won’t be a phone on your wrist. It won’t be a watch as we know it. We already have excellent phones. We already have excellent watches. For the Apple watch to be worth creating, it must be excellent at something else.
The first iPod was compelling because it did one thing well. And for a decade it continued to do that one thing well with pretty much the only iterations being to the hardware’s form factor and capabilities. Will the “iWatch” be in a similar vein? Deceptively simple while excelling at one thing in particular?
Max Child’s idea for an iWatch that’s an “‘insanely great’ wearable running computer” sounds compelling and interesting to me. I began running a few months ago, and so yes, I’m still a noobie at it, but I also have been on enough runs to know how helpful and yet simultaneously frustrating the iPhone is as a running companion device.
Apple’s wearable may be hyper-focused on running and exercise, or perhaps it will be something different. But either way, it will likely be controversial as a lot of people call out all the missed opportunities Apple didn’t take with this first-generation product.