|
|
|
|
|
by coldtea
3598 days ago
|
|
>I certainly don't agree with it. Wearables have a lot of potential, but wearable watches are fundamentally not a great idea - for practical reasons (screen too small, limited battery life) I'm not sure I follow. A wearable watch will have the biggest screen and better battery life combo than any other kind of practical wearable device I can think of (e.g. when not strapping a 3" screen and a battery pack the size of a Zippo on you and calling it a wearable). >So unlike the iPhone and the home computer, both of which have obvious use cases, Watch is still trying to define a compelling reason for existing. If not other things, Fitness/health/medical services would be a killer reason for existing. |
|
The watch format is a dead end.
The user benefit of the iPhone was obvious. The user benefit of a wearable watch is not obvious at all. As soon as you call the product a "watch" you're constraining the possible design and the user expectations, and also competing with hundreds of years of history.
As for health - for now, FitBit does it better.
A permanent on-wrist health lab with medical record sharing would be amazing, but the technology for that is a long way away.
Meanwhile Pokemon Go has done a lot more for health than any wearable has.