2 
There’s no such thing as the Apple iWatch, and maybe there never will be. But if Cupertino does start selling futurustic Jetsons wrist wear, you need to prepare for one thing: looking like a jackass in public. Worth it?
Let’s not ignore the fact that we’re in dumb, murky waters here, discussing the fashionable future of a thing that isn’t real. But there’s no arguing that wearable tech is a serious thing; these are questions you’ll have to answer whether it’s Apple or Google or Jawbone or whoever else presenting them. So let’s wade in, open our mouths and drown.
If the iWatch happens, it’s not because Apple necessarily thinks making a curved-OLED, iOS-breathing, fitness-tracking, app-running, iPhone-linking smartwatch is a good idea. If you can ever buy one of these things, it’s likely because Apple has slowly regressed into a company that follows markets instead of inventing them: it made a 4-inch iPhone to appease ham-handed phablet fans, and a smaller iPad to compete with its rivals at Google and Amazon. Both of these products ended up being pretty damn good gadgets, but they only exist because Apple was forced into a defensive posture. The likes of Nike’s FuelBand and the FitBit are causing the same. Apple’s corporate caretakers are under tremendous pressure from investors, analysts, and other Wall Street speculators who are spanking AAPL for not creating something as unprecedented as the original iPod every three years until the end of time. Poor Tim Cook.
That an (again, hypothetical) iWatch would be born, not out of inspiration, but obligation is worrying, if you’re someone who wants an Apple wearable that doesn’t suck and make you feel bad about yourself. It’s a lot easier to make a phone slightly larger or make a tablet slightly smaller than it is to create an amazing thing of a kind that’s never existed outside of comic books and sci-fi novels. In fact, making a smartwatch is a massively difficult undertaking. History is not on Apple’s side: recall that the company already made a watch of sorts with the iPod Nano, and then completely retreated from the entire concept, removing any trace of watch-ness from it after just one generation. Which was probably smart, because nobody other than the most oblivious of nerds or avant garde style muppets ever tried wearing the thing as a watch. It was a gimmick. It was awkward. It was ugly, more often than not. Very, very few people, it turned out, wanted to wear an Apple gadget on their wrists.
And why would they? Even Sony’s SmartWatch, which was a functional disaster but at least somewhat handsome, was a nightmare to wear in public. I was stared and laughed at as I tapped at this gaudy arm LCD that I couldn’t put away. The single stranger who asked me about it approached the thing as you might someone’s glass eye, not The Future — and most tellingly, she never asked me where she could get one of her own.
So what’ll be different about Apple’s attempt? The iWatch can only be more goofy and unbecoming than the relatively-subtle (but still awkwardly attention-grabbing) FuelBand. If you think Nike’s LED-encrusted bracelet is a bit much, imagine an iWatch that’s a big shining piece of “curved glass” hanging on your wrist at all times. And it would be big; remember that it’s reported to run iOS apps, which demands some serious surface area. This is more an iBangle than an iWatch, and that’s pushing most of the human populace into profoundly uncomfortable territory. What are we getting ourselves into? Or more properly, what does Apple want to get us all into?
In order for the thing to do half of what it’s rumoured to pull off, it’d have to be even significantly bigger than the iPod nano, which was insufficient as a touchscreen device. So, look at the thing up top — and imagine it larger, brighter, and curved around your entire wrist. It would have to dwarf that.
Take Google Glass — what’s ostensibly the wearable future of computers is still a giggle-inducing fantasy project. Even casually cruising the New York subway, Sergey Brin looks like he walked out of a scene from Hackers, not a dinner party or classroom. It’s not ready for real life. And like I said, wearing Sony’s watch made me look (and feel) like an arsehole. Until we’re eased into wearable computing, a curved-glass micro-computer is going to feel like a stigmata from Jony Ive.
So Apple’s non-and-maybe-never-existent watch is in a very real bind: it has to be spectacular enough to appease a Wall Street succubus, and fit comfortably in the House of Ive, but not so brilliant that we can’t wear it without drawing stares and muggings. It has to be something that jibes with real life — and our real bodies — more than any analyst’s gravy train or fanboy futurist’s wet dream. It has to be a watch, it has to be a spectacular Apple product, and it has to be something that doesn’t make us want to hide when we’re in public. And that might require more magic than Apple will ever be able to muster.
iWatch concept rendering by Yrving Torrealba, top photo by rubenerd
Face Swap App Is Stupidly Fun and Amazingly Useless
Amazing Magic Powder Freezes Water Drops As They Bounce
These Pictures Show How Amazing Photoshop's Magical Deblurring Tool Can Be
In my opinion it’s all about adoption and whilst I’d be surprised if any ‘watch’ system took off I think that Google Glass could IF it’s marketed right, priced correctly and actually brings enough value / reason to wear it versus the ‘embarrassment’ of wearing it as an early adopter.
I remember initial mobile phones and initial bluetooth headsets and nowadays they’re both commonplace as they have a use, ig Google Glass can prove ‘useful’ then I think the same will happen but I don’t see it happening with a watch design.
Since age 8 I have been wearing prescription glasses and I always dreaded to get get rid of them with laser eye surgery, until Google glass arrived. Now, I can’t wait to buy them *SOBS*
My first thought was like yours, what about when bluetooth headsets first showed up, and they’re relatively common now, even with non taxi drivers. But I’ll go back further, to the early eighties (giving my age away now), when the first Sony Walkmans came out. Wearing something the size of a half brick on your belt, with big over ear headphones (which ironically we’re seeing again now), brought more than a few stares. I put up with them though, cause the function it brought me made it worthwhile. As there wasn’t a previous form to compare it to, function was all it had then. I’m kind of thinking that with the watch concept, as long as the function makes it worthwhile, as long as the form isn’t too horrendous, it will be accepted, then as with the walkman, the form will improve over time.
I agree (and we’re probably about the same age) but I think that Google Glass (or similar) will bring more ‘function’ than a watch device so will probably be accepted faster.
I still wear a watch but I know a lot of younger people don’t even bother because they’ve got their phones (which have the time on them) so they’re not even used to wearing one, thus it becomes a ‘new’ accessory in the same way Google Glass would.
What? You won’t find me complaining about wearing some crazy next-generation tech.
Remembering that Apple’s real talent is re-inventing the wheel. That is what they’ve always done best, can’t see why this would be any different.
I agree, Apple are very good at re-inventing something and making the masses buy it. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it may be what ‘wearable tech’ needs to go mainstream. The likes of Samsung and other manufacturers will start to see sales increase as they market and sell their ‘wearable tech’ and sooner or later everyone is a winner.
If anyone can do it, it will be them.
“If the iWatch happens, [...] it’s likely because Apple has slowly regressed into a company that follows markets instead of inventing them”
You must be confused. Apple never have invented markets. What they have done is reinvented markets. Each time, they took niche products and made them mainstream. It was like widening a trickling stream into a raging torrent, but there had to be a stream there in the first place.
Today’s smartwatch/fitness tracker market could be compared to personal computers in the early ’80s or MP3 players in the late 90s.
If/when Apple enters the smartwatch market, they will change it forever, and many other companies will follow them. Jawbone and Fitbit will have to adapt or fade into the dust, and people will forget that their products predated the iWatch.
But please, don’t further the misconception that Apple invents everything.
You forget: this is a tech blog. Most of us are pretty stupid looking already.
Speak for yourself!
*looks at clearly-dressed-in-the-dark-today outfit*
…Oh yeah
I was most definitely speaking for myself!
No more stupid than I am for a Pebble!
Which reminds me, Chris, has yours appeared yet?
I personally think that if Apple do decide to create a watch then they need to keep things simple. Jonny Ive and his team can I’m sure create something that looks great and maybe even (dare I say it) sophisticated.
Then, if Apple keep the functionality of the watch to a small selection of key items they could have a winner. I envisage the watch being able to:
Display notifications from notification centre
Allow you to control your iPod app
Activate and talk to Siri
Really, what else would you need it to do? (All the obvious things like world time etc. I’m assuming would just be part of the actual time displaying app).
Come on Sam, show some imagination. Have some confidence. At the risk of sounding like junior management, think outside the box.
If you’re unable to do that (like most of us, sadly), just assume instead that Apple are more than capable of surprising us. After all, they’ve done it a few times before.
Trying to guess what Apple will come up with is a pointless exercise. They’ve got a blank slate to work with here, so looking back at past failures does not provide a suitable yardstick for comparison.
i like all these advancements, but using them in public its just asking to be robbed, unfortunately there are to many scumbags out there ready to take the stuff from you
” a curved-glass micro-computer is going to feel like a stigmata from Jony Ive.” – well I lol’d. I tend to agree with everyone though – it needs to be cool, discrete and just do the functions that make sense and then it will probably sell bucketloads.