Looks like they're taking a lot of what they've built for Google Glass, and moved it to a watch form factor, which should give it a much better chance of success.<p>I personally have been wearing a pebble for over 6 months now and it's one of the best purchases I've ever made. I don't see myself ever not owning a smart watch again and I'm really excited to see what Google can do with this.
Only problem is, while the software may be mature at this point, the HW just isn't there. These bulky watches aren't going anywhere. Same for glasses.<p>These devices will become widespread when they'll come in sizes comparable to "analog" offerings and, crucially, when we'll start seeing products thought by designers instead of engineers.
Problem is ... I suspect that the Wearables SDK will be another case of Google launching proprietary libraries on Android. I have no problem with proprietary, but a lot of people think that because it's Android, it is open. It isn't. Core Android gets slimmer, Google's tie-in to your business gets fatter (unless you re-write their APIs). As an example, developers followed the location APIs in to the Play SDK ... switching from an open, core API to the Play API without fuss. It's creep if you ask me.
Intuitive, form-conscious interfaces are definitely needed, but I think the hardware problem is the biggest hurdle facing wearables. Especially the battery design. I own a Pebble, and there is something significantly different about how I look at charging it... and that's with them doing everything they can to eek out battery life. This necessitates e-ink, accelerometer-based backlighting, etc. Having a beautiful display usually means abysmal battery life and an need to shake/touch your wearable every time you want to interact with it.
I note that neither of the guys talking on the video (including one who wears spectacles) is using Google Glass. Also that the most prominently displayed information on the "watch" is the temperature. Now, I can understand time not being front and center, but...
Sorry, Google - photorealistic renderings and simulations are <i>not</i> allowed on Kickstarter...<p>Oh, you're <i>not</i> trying to sell us that cool watch?<p>Well, somebody will have it up on Kickstarter soon. Probably using your slick video, too.<p>EDIT: Looks like the watch is real (Moto 360), and is coming this summer: <a href="http://moto360.motorola.com/" rel="nofollow">http://moto360.motorola.com/</a>
Attempts at making watches do more:<p>Calculator Watch - 80s/90s -Enjoyed sucess in still produced<p>Game Watch - 80s/90s - pretty much non existent now<p>Radio watch - <a href="http://www.in-ovation-products.com/images/gadget_sports_radio_watch.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.in-ovation-products.com/images/gadget_sports_radi...</a><p>TV Watch - Too young dont know what happened to these<p>Remote Control Watch - dont know if it ever caught on but it was fun to use it to screw with substitute teacher when playing videos
It's interesting that (unlike Google Glass), they are going out of their way to attach this to "Android". So the question is, is all the code for this going to fall under the same license as AOSP? Will it be <i>part of</i> AOSP? Or is there no code as such, just a bunch of APIs, and the OEMs are going to create proprietary implementations from the ground up? Does it imply the watches are going to be <i>running</i> Android, or can they run <i>any</i> OS as long as it supports the Android Wearable API set?
Watches are jewelry.
Because of the "social-classy" value of these products, I do not think that adding them some geeky features will find a real market.