Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Smartwatch Apps Could You See Yourself Using?
An anonymous reader writes: It's official: the smartwatch wars have begun. Apple's announcement of the Apple Watch added a contender to the race already shaping up between the Pebble watch, the Moto 360, and others. Personally, my doubts about wanting one were put to rest when I learned of the health-related features. Smartwatches will be able to track your movements and pulse rate, calculate how many calories you burn, and coach you continuously to improve your fitness.
If you have one or plan on buying one, what apps or functions do you see yourself getting the most use from? If you're still skeptical, what would it take? (If an app developer sees your requirements here on Slashdot, your wish might come true.)
If you have one or plan on buying one, what apps or functions do you see yourself getting the most use from? If you're still skeptical, what would it take? (If an app developer sees your requirements here on Slashdot, your wish might come true.)
The things that I can currently think of that I'd use a smartwatch for - 1) GPS / pedometer for running 2) music (without the need for a phone) while working out 3) discreetly checking notifications during meetings 4) navigation when riding a bike / motorcycle. I realize not everyone would value these and will say "JUST USE YOUR PHONE!", but for a $200 - $250 smart watch, I'd definitely drop down the money for these apps.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Wake me up when a smartwatch is a standalone device that does everything my Nexus 5 does now with decent battery life and an affordable pricetag. We're making progress, sure, but nowhere near primetime.
I could see dropping 100 bucks, maybe, on something that tracks health telemetry,
If price is the only hurdle, then Apple will be fine. Your line of $100 is someone else's line at $350.
But I'm not sure I'd bother wearing it after the first few days even if it was given to me. That is a bigger problem than "too expensive".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you're like a lot of people, you carry a backpack/computer case with you on a regular basis. Keeping your phone safely inside that bag for most circumstances would be a benefit, freeing your pockets of the burden. You could still receive/triage incoming communications while the phone was tucked away. "Nearby" for a well designed bluetooth transceiver is 30-45 feet which is enough to keep you from having to unsheathe your phone in most circumstances.
The correct solution is to put all the "phone" functionality (antenna, transmitter, etc.) in the "watch", and use the "phone" as nothing more than a remote display and computing platform. It would be tricky to create the right split (since the watch has to have some computing power), but not impossible. The second trick would be to get the battery life of the watch high enough with the added power requirements.
The current split of "watch is a peripheral" won't appeal to enough people to make true sales inroads. Sure, Apple is going to sell a lot of these just because of the Apple name, but it's still going to be just a small percentage of iPhone owners, much less smart phone owners.
Holy moley, you could get an instafication when a compatible/willing partner is nearby. That would be hilariously awesome!