Final Words

In many industries, but especially in technology, there's a common wisdom about waiting for the second or third iteration of a product before purchasing it. This is based on the idea that the first version of a product will often be the most flawed or compromised - a product still trying to find its footing - and future iterations will benefit from improved technology, as well as fixes for flaws that were found in early versions. At the same time, there have to be some people who are adventurous enough to adopt bleeding-edge technology, or the first version of a product would simply fail in the market and there wouldn't ever be a second version.

This situation has played out for every iOS and iOS-derived device that Apple has created. The original iPhone was quite a technological marvel, but it was crippled by its lack of 3G networking, and its price was exceptionally high. With the iPhone 3G and 3GS, Apple addressed many of the issues that existed with the iPhone 2G, and by the time of the iPhone 4 the refinement was essentially at the same level that we expect from smartphones today. The original iPad was an interesting idea, but it was quick thick and heavy, and the hardware used at the time was not up to the task of powering such a device, sending it to end of life status after only two major updates. Only one year later, the iPad 2 addressed both of these issues, future versions brought faster hardware and higher resolution displays, and by the time of the iPad Air it reached a level of refinement where further versions have been much more iterative changes.

The first Apple Watch was definitely in the same situation as the iPhone 2G and the iPad 1. It was the first version of a brand new product, bound by serious hardware limitations and many unknowns about how consumers would come to use it. Like the iPad 1 it has received two major OS updates, and I don't expect it to go any farther. I talked earlier about how Apple had an idea of how the Apple Watch would be used, but clearly overestimated the appeal of some aspects and underestimated the appeal of others. The Apple Watch Series 2 focuses more on these aspects such as fitness with its GPS and true waterproofing, while watchOS 3 fixes many of the software issues that existed in the previous two versions.

The Apple Watch is still very much a companion to the iPhone. Even with the addition of GPS, it isn't close to being able to stand on its own. You can avoid bringing along the paired iPhone for workouts, and the watch can pull data from the network in some cases using its built in WiFi, but in general having the iPhone nearby is a requirement to actually do anything. Bringing cellular to the Watch would make it significantly less-dependent on the iPhone, but that also comes with a power and a space penalty, both of which are heavily constrained with a smartwatch.

Even if Apple were to bring cellular to the Apple Watch, I question how beneficial it would be for the experience given the two drawbacks I mentioned above. I can't think of many cases where I don't actually have my phone, so I don't know why I'd pay to maintain an additional cellular line for my watch when my phone was usually available to handle network activity. Additionally, adding cellular wouldn't remove the tight connection between the two devices, as the Apple Watch's settings and backups exist on the paired iPhone, and all of its applications are extensions of iPhone apps. This model makes it clear to me that Apple isn't planning to make the Apple Watch a standalone device any time soon.

As a companion to the iPhone, the Apple Watch works quite well. For me the Apple Watch is a timepiece, a hub for relevant information and notifications, a music player, and a health and fitness tracker. I've long since gotten used to having something on my wrist, and in fact I find myself checking my bare wrist out of habit when I've taken the Apple Watch off. Being able to check the time, the weather, the date, and other information simply by raising your wrist is just a convenience, and it's nothing your iPhone can't do as well, but it's a convenience that I wouldn't want to give up now that I have it.

Using Apple Watch as a music player is probably a more niche use case, but it does apply to me. It really seems like the natural replacement of the current iPod Nano, which is of a similar size. Of course, there's no headphone jack, but I've been using Bluetooth headphones for seven years so that doesn't present a problem for me personally. Even if you use your iPhone for music, the Apple Watch provides a quick way to access playback controls, especially if you have the Music application set as a complication or kept in the Dock. I suspect that more users will end up utilizing the standalone Music playback abilities of the Apple Watch now that the AirPods are shipping to consumers, but only time will tell.

Last, but not least, are the Apple Watch's health and fitness tracking abilities. When the Apple Watch first launched I thought I would just turn these off and forget about them, but my own poor health choices have led to me relying on them to keep myself on track. Having something constantly monitoring me is essential in figuring out how many calories I'm burning on a daily basis, which is how I decide what I'm going to eat. Workouts also provide me with various statistics about my jogging and cycling that I had always wondered about but had never been able to track. As the days get colder, having the Activity rings on the watch face is also a constant reminder that I need to keep active even if I'm staying inside to keep warm. Many of these things basically come down to the Apple Watch pointing out flaws in my personality that I won't improve of my own volition, and I'm okay with that because it produces results.

While I'm talking about the core aspects of the current Apple Watch experience, it does bear repeating that some things that Apple thought would be a big part of the experience have really fizzled out. I haven't found myself using it as a communication device except for taking phone calls, and Apple has de-emphasized communication as a feature in watchOS 3 accordingly, so I expect I wasn't alone. Similarly, I think issues with watchOS and the original Apple Watch's hardware have damaged the image of the Apple Watch as an app platform, and as someone who used the original I really haven't gotten used to using applications because in the past they just never worked.

As for development, I think it's fair to say that the Apple Watch hasn't yet proven itself as a developer platform. However, WatchKit is a really interesting and well thought out API for designing and developing apps for the smartwatch form factor. Despite the quality of the API itself, there's clearly still uncertainty over what an Apple Watch app should even aspire to do. I think not making a watchOS app at all is a valid decision for many iPhone applications, and that's an important decision for developers to make because it's an investment of time and money, and there are several applications that offer watchOS apps without any compelling functionality.

Ultimately, both watchOS and the Apple Watch are still in their early days, and the software will grow and improve over time as the hardware becomes faster and more efficient. The Apple Watch Series 2 really reminds me of the iPad 2. It tackles the areas where its predecessor faltered, and provides a much better experience as a result, but there's still that lingering early adopter feeling that even greater improvements are coming in the next generation. I would imagine that future series of the Apple Watch will bring additional sensors for tracking health information, thinner casings, and hopefully better battery life so features like sleep tracking will be possible. While there's always something to look forward to in future versions of a product, I think the Apple Watch Series 2 does provide a compelling experience right now, and for iPhone users interested in a fitness tracker or a smartwatch it should be high on your list of devices to consider.

watchOS Apps: UI Design
Comments Locked

126 Comments

View All Comments

  • wumpus - Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - link

    Can you program it at all?

    All I need a "smart watch" to do:
    Start/stop a run tracking app.

    Optional extras (biggies):
    display time elapsed during run
    cycle between time/heart rate/pace
    show current time when not running (especially if insufficiently clunky)
    display phone number/name of whose calling

    I might find other apps after purchase, but those are the issues I need. Pebble was launched primarily on runkeeper integration, but failed hard (especially hard is the start/stop functionality: being able to lock your phone and put it in your pocket would be key.
  • michael2k - Tuesday, December 20, 2016 - link

    By that measure, why buy an iPhone when you've got $400 laptops and $99 Android phones?
  • sadsteve - Tuesday, December 20, 2016 - link

    Heh, I didn't buy an iPhone. My new laptop was $650 (had separate graphics card with 2GB memory) and my Android phone was only $29.
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, December 20, 2016 - link

    You are asking the wrong question :). The question (for people who already own iPhones) is why buy the watch when I already own the iPhone? Keeping in mind the reviewer makes a fairly extensive case to say that the watch is an extension of the phone and not a stand alone device. So the question is, what does the watch add to the overall picture? By the way, I'm a Samsung phone user (Note 5) but I'm not buying the Samsung watch either.
    So what does it add to the experience? What I'm mostly interested in is fitness tracking. I could see how such a thing, or a fit bit etc could be helpful to someone just getting started. But for those of us who have been at it (fitness) for a while - going on 20 years for me - all I need is a simple heart rate monitor and I don't even use that all the time. After a while you get to know what a certain heart rate feels like based on breathing and don't really need the readout except as an occasional check. On my bike, I need speed, distance and cadence in addition to hear rate. Speed and distance could be calculated from GPS data but cadence (rotations per minute of the crank arms) has to come from a sensor on the bike. The racers and others more hard core than me also measure their power output. I don't see anything like a smart watch being able to really replace a specialized bike computer.
    I also don't want one expensive device that isn't useful without also having a different expensive device.
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, December 20, 2016 - link

    PS: OK, I know this is a personal bias. But my first thought when I saw the picture at the beginning of the story was "it looks like a cartoon".
  • Cliff34 - Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - link

    Personally, I don't need all the data to track speed, HR and distance. I used to do triathlon and thos things matter bc I need to know how far and fast I am training.

    But for the everyday user, where fitness is more for health reasons rather than athletic performance, it is a bit over kill.

    Sure you can be the data geek to find out and graph how much training you've been doing. But the data is more to show than for actual athletic improvement.

    During my triathlon era, we often joke that the time we spent tracking and 'analyzing' our data can be better spent putting in more hours to get the body fitter (and faster).

    Right now, i am not training to race now. So i just run or exercise however I feel like it. The only data i track is my time and that you don't need any fancy gadgets.
  • rhysiam - Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - link

    While I agree that all the fitness tracking features are "a bit overkill", in the end of the day loads of people find them helpful. It's not really about the tracking data, it's about the reward system such data makes possible. From a psychological perspective, gaining rewards, however trivial, ultimately reinforces our behaviours. There is a whole industry of repetitive, reward based games that tap into this (Pokemon GO being the most successful example of late).

    Fitness trackers, settings goals, gaining rewards, etc., are mostly based on a similar behaviour -> reward -> behaviour loop. While I'm sure we'd all love to be entirely self motivated and not require any external rewards, in the end of the day if those things help some people get up and active instead of hitting the snooze button again, or just staying in front of a screen, who really cares?
  • Flunk - Tuesday, December 20, 2016 - link

    Not that many people do, Apple controlled a shrinking 11.7% of the smartphone market as of Q2 2016.

    IDC: http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-market-shar...
  • KoolAidMan1 - Thursday, December 22, 2016 - link

    And yet they still dominate app revenue, mobile ad revenue, mobile internet traffic, and smartphone profits.

    Whoever is buying those iPhones is using them a hell of a lot more than whoever is buying whatever else is out there, that much is clear.
  • jospoortvliet - Sunday, December 25, 2016 - link

    I would guess this has something to do with the big 'installed base' and longer life cycle for iPhones. Also because their owners are more likely to be well off (iPhone markets hare is higher in the us than India or afrika -- surprise).

    And absolute sales is the decreasing, relative sales is. There is a shift, though, with some countries selling very few iPhones to the point where local app development for Apple becomes less of a priority (Spain is an example). This is of course a risk for Apple- if they loose their spot of top app development target or even become not-a-target they will fall in a vicious circle of people not buying their device especially for lack of apps and developers not developing for lack of users. They are not there yet is most of the world but in some regions, as I said- getting close.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now