I am in the position of being torn apart by two very strong feelings. One is the world where information flow due to companies like Google does a real service to humanity: for e.g. wearing devices that can keep us reminded of our meds or monitor sugar levels, to talk just about the possibilities in healthcare.
Then I think of Edward Snowden and I now know that what Google knows, maybe America/Russia/China/WhatHaveYou know. Although at this point I am as normal a citizen as you can find, that can't be taken for granted forever. For e.g. in my nation (India) being gay is illegal and so is marijuana, and so is alcohol (in some states) and so is a lot of stuff. This feeling makes me want to minimize my footprint.<p>Wish there was a way to combat either the wariness, or to exacerbate the joy. For, I must be assimilated into the Borg, too. :)<p>EDIT: spellings
We're in a situation comparable to smartphones pre-iPhone: we know there is value in displaying stuff on your wrist, we know we need some way to send information in response to those received from the screen, but all of this doesn't click together. We have fragments of a solution, but we don't know which problem it solves, and certainly not how to integrate it into a life-enhancing experience.<p>Smartphone builders had similarly vague ideas about which problem they were solving: they knew they needed to give access to some dumbed-down subset of the web and of our computer data. They knew that mails were part of that subset. Mail is easy, it's SMS with a different transport protocol, right? So they were looking for a dumbed-down keyboard, dumbed-down mouse, dumbed-down windows, scrollbars, etc.<p>The iPhone took a mile-high view of the problem. "Dumbed-down mice (stylus) and keyboards suck. How do we make them superfluous? And how do we get adequate access to non-dumbed-down Internet, too?"<p>Now with the watch. We have some vague fragments too. We know when we don't want to take our phone out, so in each of those cases we plan to use the watch as a dumbed-down phone screen. It's probably touch-sensitive, too (in a dumbed-down way no doubt), and it lets you awkwardly have a subset of the interactions you'd have had with your phone. So, I bet that watch is nothing but a dumbed-down proxy of our phone.<p>I'm still waiting for someone, not unlikely Apple, to show me what I really wanted from a smart watch, without realizing it. And if apple figured this out as well as they figured out the smartphone, the Google-wearable guys will kick themselves during the demo, the way the Android guys decomposed themselves while Jobs was showing them what they should have done.
The thing is, hardware is key here. The OS matters, and I would bet that someone could do way better than running Linux in a watch (something much more low-level on a much weaker processor could extend the battery life significantly).<p>The hardware and sensors is the big problem. Currently, the best smartwatch specs I have seen are the Basis B1. It claims it can monitor your heart rate, track your sleep, etc. But that is all a lie. Sure, it can track your heart rate at rest, but during intensive exercise there is no comparison with something like a Polar chest strap. At the same time the claim that the B1 can monitor your sleep phase based on your heart rate is a bit far fetched as well. From what I've read the heart rate does not change by more than 1-2 bpm between REM and deep sleep, which is within the margin of error of the measurements, so the data out will be all wrong. As for the non-fitness functions of a smart watch, I don't see a huge value in having my wrist buzz every time a random ticket on GitHub gets updated or NewRelic sends me a performance metrics summary. Even text messages are much easier to process on the phone.<p>I want to believe in the smartwatch idea. I want it to be a gadget that somehow improves my daily life. So far, aside from things like the Garmin Forerunner, I haven't see anything that would remotely come close to improving anything.
I'm <i>far</i> more interested in how we're going to solve issues like battery life with these devices than how they're going to look. So yes, this preview looks great. But for now I still consider my Pebble watch to be a much better option.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I let Google have an always-on device attached to my person, wearable or otherwise.<p>These folks have proven--proven!--that they are unable to protect their infrastructure from state actors, that they do not care about individual customers, and that they will hijack our services on a whim to try and raise money. Fuck that noise.<p>Any wearables need to be completely open-source, and with the ability to retarget their output to servers that <i>we</i> control, with security that <i>we</i> verify.<p>And you know what? Not a single "normal" person understands the issue here. Aaaargh.
I had expected them to be aiming more for commonality with the API of Google Glass. Maybe in turn Glass will move more towards this. But they're going to end up with a lot of notification UIs for devs to worry about (Android, Android wear, Chrome, Glass are different) unless they are working on consolidating this.<p>Given that Glass rapidly deteriorates to being a fun camera, but otherwise not too much else, the only compelling use they presented here was the checking sports scores and needing water resistance. Until it's clearer just what scope for customisation there is going to be for the "cards" it's going to remain looking like a solution in search of a problem (EDIT: thanks todd for obvious correction :) ).<p>Finally, I think this space will be won by the "Game Boy" approach. Lower fi (possibly even no touch screen), but longer battery life and easier to view screen in bright direct sunlight.
Although the software important I think with wearables hardware will be key. No matter how functional these devices are they are first and foremast a fashion accessory and need to look good. There will also need to be a large variety. Every time I look at buying a new watch I cycle through dozens and dozens of devices before I find one I like the look of. This is where I think Google has the upper hand on Apple with wearables. Apple will most likely produce the only device running their software and a lot of people won't like wearing the same fashion accessory as everyone else - they will want choice. Of course if Apple knocks it out of the park with the software/sensors (which is plausible from what I read about Healthbook yesterday) the functionality may just edge out the important of fashion.
Those things look huge. Until "smart watches" can be made smaller and lighter, the adoption rate will be abysmal.<p>Seriously, those things are electric hockey pucks with straps.
Why not approach this from the computing as a bicycle for your mind point of view?<p>Smartphones were the latest computing evolution bringing general purpose computing with you all the time and with an incredibly ease to use interface. Now people are trying to introduce this new computing device (the smart watch). What does it bring?<p>It doesn't take up a hand since you don't have to hold it. You don't have to get it out of your pocket or turn it or pick it up to use it. To get it to do stuff you speak to it (possibly even easier to use than touch computing). It can be attached to your skin and read all sorts of data through your skin.<p>What it doesn't bring you is a sizable enough screen to view photos or text (yet). Also it doesn't take advantage of one of our most precise tools (our hands).<p>From this we may be able to predict what niches smart watches will evolve into to fill. Heavily voice based, quick call and respond style communications, updates and reminders, location based notifications, no-hand enhancers such as leveling, altimeters, etc... And since the watch is oriented towards your own face... it is heavily personal and can't be easily shared like a phone.
When someone has a 'session' with a wearable that involves anything more than the the most minimal of operations [1], I feel like that's the "stylus moment" [2].<p>Sure, there are narrow use cases when 'interacting' with a wearable is conceivable where a phone still is not (e.g. while biking or jogging). But that's going to run into the same problems that Glass runs into: how many people can really justify an electronics purchase to enable <i>interactive</i> computing during those situations? [3]<p>[1] Swiping to cycle through glance-able cards or triage notifications<p>[2] "If you see a stylus, they blew it"<p>[3] Particularly not when purely-passive devices will inevitably be available with lower cost, smaller size/weight, better battery life, etc. (e.g. Pebble vs Fuelband)
The last time I used Google Now was too scared to use it ever again. I don't want to report my location, see cool pictures of my surroundings, or know about the events of my city. It's not just only about the surveillance, it's about the future. The connected future, the uninteresting one. The one on which one must "opt-in" or just stay out. Personally, I do not get Google Now cards. When they are relevant, they are depressing.<p>Hopefully this stage of the future is just a step into a more positive and fulfilling one.<p>That being said, give me a rooted version of this device where I can install a custom OS that allows me to use it as a computer and I am in.
Whatever you wear reflects on you. I don't think this is something for someone who is fashion conscious people (like many people in LA). Wealthy people would prefer an Audemars or a Rolex any day compared to a Motorola or Samsung. Definitely see maybe teens and techies in Silicon Valley wearing these.<p>Like the iPad when it first when out, the smartwatch should do some key things better than any other device, which it does and some minor things like telling the weather, taking notes etc. although reading long articles, viewing photos or anything that involves a lot of interaction is be suited on a phone, tablet or computer.
The key to the success of these things will be the ability to get information from the display without having to touch it. At first I figured this would mean an always-on display (so, e-ink, I guess), but this clearly isn't that, and yet they don't seem to turn the displays on in the videos (though I'm sure they're all fake).<p>I wonder if you could do something with the accelerometer that would be good enough? Like, if your arm orientation changes to look-at-your-watch position, the display turns on, and it turns off again when your arm goes back down to your side.
Glass is going to quietly shift to being a device for niche groups - not the average consumers. Google has likely realized via the beta of Glass that it's not going to be accepted into the mainstream - but a watch (which is much more discreet, yet performs many of the same functions as Glass) will. If Google wants to really saturate the market, this is a super smart move.
So it's like an amped up google now on a watch?<p>I'm intrigued, but the price has to be good. Anything over $100 is just going to be a nonstarter in my opinion.<p>Will I have to charge it 3 times a day, not going to work...etc.<p>There's lots of difficulties with packing this in to a usable form factor and selling it.<p>The galaxy gear had a return rate > 30%. But it's also a $300 watch. For $300 it better do more than make it mildly easier for me to do things that I already do on my phone, which sits literally inches away from where my watch would be on my wrist.<p>And let's say it's wildly successful, I'm really interested in how a watch, on a bus full of people with watches, will know that <i>you</i> are saying "ok google" to it and not somebody else. Imagine sitting in a subway car, and some guy comes in and shouts "ok google, find me a bukake site!" or similar and now everybody on the train has to deal with that.
> Voice Actions<p>> Register your app to handle voice actions, like "Ok Google, take a note."<p>I think this is what most interests me. Hopefully we won't be locked into Google's pre-defined tasks and developers can start working on their own voice actions.
Not sure why but saying 'Ok Google' feels a little creepier than saying 'Ok Glass'. More obvious that you aren't interfacing with a mere gadget, but a multi billion dollar corporate entity...
The part of the advert that impressed me most was that Google Now's voice recognition worked well enough to be useful. Something tells me that isn't actually a new feature.
Two points:<p>- This looks basically like an amped up google now, so maybe this means developer access to Now as well, which would be more exciting to me at the moment.<p>- Pretty much all of the info they showed in the demo would work on an epaper display, maybe minus the swiping gestures. I sure hope the experience will include pebble style watches with a battery life longer than a few hours, but I am not holding my breath.
The software is an important part of this, but I'm more interested in seeing what new types of hardware will run this OS. The watch concept is only neat to me right now.<p>It definitely feels like Android is ripe to bust the confines of the phone and move in to other parts of our lives. The work that Qualcomm is putting in their Snapdragon platform is evidence of this.
The commerical, PoC is great. But its idea has the same flaw as Facebook Paper (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/paper" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/paper</a>).<p>I can check the weather, get alert and listen to my music from my smartphone. I can enjoy some home automation with Canary (<a href="http://canary.is/" rel="nofollow">http://canary.is/</a>). If I have free time I can design my own app and integrate a speech recognition to open the door (I am sure there are companies selling this too).<p>What unique "innovations" - conveniences will Google wearable (which at this stage seems to be just a watch) offer?<p>I say it has the same flaw as Facebook Paper because Paper
's success is based on rich, beautiful, poetic content. If your circle is casual writer, Paper will look lame to you. I love Google Glass because I can take pictures and record the world from a first-person view attached to my head. I don't plan on making a phone call directly from Google Glass yet - that's kind of weird.<p>So what else can Google watch do? I just can't see it.<p><i>The ability to better monitor your health and fitness. </i><p>You see, I can still get away with it with other accessory. I will give Google credit and say this is useful, but other than that, I really don't see it.<p>You know what is unique? What I want to see?<p>Iron Man computer screen + Iron Man interactive airtouch computer system.... That's what we are lacking. I want to be able to swipe through contents, web pages from thin air with gesture. We can do some of that already. Push it forward!<p><i>edit</i>:<p>I will say this is useful as assistive technology. People who are visually impaired or motion disable can benefit from it. Just put it on wrist and good to go. But other than that, I just don't see it.
It's going to be pretty great now that everyone has shown their "huge black square on the wrist" design before apple has shown anything. Looking forward to seeing them scramble to steal apples design.
I hope you're all paying attention to the trend this represents, a trend fueled by ever-smaller and more intimate Android devices. Pretty soon the term "Android" may become literal.
I agree that software is secondary to current hardware concerns at the moment, but doesn't this effort make it more attractive for hardware experts to try and dive in to improve the wearables market?<p>They've already got a "ready to go" OS with which to prototype. Pretty awesome since I'm sure Samsung worked hard to get its Gear integration working. Maybe this will improve the number of players in the space? I'm all for efforts that help bring more options to the table.
We're throwing a IoT/Wearables Hackathon in april. Check it out: <a href="http://hackendo.techendo.co/" rel="nofollow">http://hackendo.techendo.co/</a>
Asking me to strap a computer to my risk is like assigning me homework: it requires a new way of thinking and interacting.<p>Having said that, I'd better see a significant improvement over using other interfaces. That's why I'm at least initially disappointed with the Android watched.<p>I get that we all love new interfaces because they're new and fun to play with, but what will this watch do for me that my smartphone can't do?
If helpful for anyone, I put together a collection of coverage on today's Android Wear announcement + other neat stuff on the rise of wearables<p><a href="http://wayfinder.co/pathways/5328b918bf637c0a00000001/what-you-need-to-know-about-android-wear" rel="nofollow">http://wayfinder.co/pathways/5328b918bf637c0a00000001/what-y...</a>
Why do they have any expectation of success at the sort of power consumption that Android requires, with the power supply that wearables can contain? I note that the previous Galaxy Gear was Android - the new one is running Tizen and has around double the battery life. That's not all battery improvements, and no coincidence besides..
Sorry for the typos; I wrote this on my phone and can't edit it. Also, I should note that I'm putting myself in others' shoes with the "homework" analogy. I'm a geek, so I don't mind learning about technology for tech's sake, but the same isn't true for most non-developers.
I have 3 question:<p>1. Will this only work with Android phone for now?<p>2. Do you agree that smart watches are more for apps that don't need a lot of user interaction. Like Instagram or Dropbox will not be great on these. Simple things like showing weather etc. will be okay.<p>3. Does anyone know the price of the Moto G or another Android Wear devices?
Optical illusion: does anyone else see the guy's sleeve move left/right when the page is scrolled up/down?<p>I am using an iPad4, and scrolling the part of the page with the second video showing the guy's wrist with a checkered cuff. (The video is not playing, just how it shows on page initially).
People wearing this watch do not seem very much interested in news articles ;) More seriously, my fuzzy estimate is that 80% of the time spent on my phone is for reading stuff that is definitely not the departure time of my next flight (that I can memorize five months in advance :) ).
Just another crapshoot from a research institution trying to divest as its core business decays.<p>Google is showing evidence they can't predict the future very well and won't sustain development in shaky fields.<p>Instead, they're going for PR and military research projects, like IBM and Veridian Dynamics.
I'm more interested in the watches that were shown on the video. I realize I might be confused, are the watches in the video just placeholders/random design concepts to get the idea across? Still, I'm wondering what devices will eventually support this SDK.
This is not wearables. It is just a tiny screen mobile device. I'd consider labeling Google Glass a wearables before what was demoed here.<p>Wearables is the idea of changing what we wear with technological augmentation. Watches have had tech for a long time....nothing new here sadly....
I wonder what precautions Google will take to avoid fragmentation of smart watches.<p>If this software works well I'd be interested to see an actual watch manufacturer implement it, seeing as software has always been their downfall.
Why are we still using watches as the base of new wearables? Is it because it makes users more comfortable with wearing a computer on their wrist?<p>Also not really sure about the round LCD, why not a curved rectangular LCD?
Try to look ten minutes onto your arm and than tell me your feelings.
Smart watches are a nice add on to a phone. Don't expect it to be a news reader, nor a phone replacement.