Email
Like so many others, I wanted the Apple Watch to be a success and in many ways it is impressive. However, I (and others) are disappointed for a number of pretty significant reasons. For the record, I have not used or seen one in the flesh, but there are huge underlying issues that need to be addressed before I’d even consider wearing one.
1) There is too much packed in, with no real use
As Benedict Evans succinctly summarised, the Apple Watch arrived but it doesn’t really solve any problems. In essence, there is a lot of kitchen sink that has been crammed in but with no clear use – beyond pared down versions of iPhone technology – many have been left saying “Do I need this?”. Compared to devices such as the Moto 360 which could be said to have clearer raison d’être, the Apple Watch ultimately tries to do everything but ends up being nothing.
Apple watch is very like the iPad. They've done the 'thing' very well, but is the 'thing' itself useful?
— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) September 9, 2014
2) Do we need more notifications or a better system?
Personally speaking I am notification neutral – I try to avoid having them on wherever possible. Instead of additional ways to be notified of pretty low-level communications (aka noise), I would have liked to see Apple offer new levels of blocking out noise, similar to its Do Not Disturb functionality where people can contact you if they are on the approved list or it is urgent. Currently, I don’t see how the Apple Watch helps me be a better communicator, just a busier one.
3) The areas of focus are misaligned
It was strange so much of the presentation on Tuesday was taken up with the demonstration of photos and areas that would suit a larger screen. In essence, there seems to be a focus on what we can do, rather than what we should do. Granted there is a developer community out there gagging to build for this new ecosystem but right now the focus appears to be on novelty instead of utility – a significant misalignment considering what it could be.
4) The watch needs an iPhone to work
The biggest area I take issue with is that the watch needs an iPhone to work – clearly there are several commercial aspects to this decision (future upgrades, existing profit centres) but the fact remains that I have to carry around (and advertise) that I am carrying around at least £1,000 in valuables. A differentiator for Apple would have been to have a separate unit that doesn’t require an iPhone (for the whopping price it is listed at) and offer a cheaper version for iPhone users.
5) A huge design opportunity has been squandered
There aren’t many times in life when you have the chance to design something that will instantly work with more than 500m credit cards (and I applaud the Apple Pay functionality) – with this sort of active base it could be argued you have licence to push some boundaries. Instead we have a “crown” – a clear nod to winding up a watch – which feels instinctively the wrong move in the age of haptic, touch, pinch and swipe.
In all seriousness, where is the future-facing, boundary pushing “this is Apple’s world you’re just in it” design? When you see prototypes created that riff on existing tech (and science fiction) to be left with the clunky, thick and blingy unit isn’t just disappointing, it’s mystifying.
Cost, design and ethos aside, the Apple Watch is a serious bit of kit – it is a marvellous amount of tech crammed inside a small (although not as small as expected) body that will delight fan boys and girls around the world. The question is: will others strap it to their wrist without it solving a clear problem?
Paul Armstrong runs HERE/FORTH. You can follow Paul on Twitter @paul__armstrong
To get weekly news analysis, job alerts and event notifications direct to your inbox, sign up free for Media Network membership.
All Guardian Media Network content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled ‘Advertisement feature’. Find out more here.
;