William Gibson on the Apple Watch

[donq]

Interesting quote from Science Fiction author William Gibson on the Apple Watch. I think he points out the essential difference between a smart watch and a mechanical watch very concisely.

"I backed Pebble’s original Kickstarter, then wore Pebble exclusively for the better part of a year. Fascinating experience. It’s not “a watch”, as I assume the Apple, which I’ve yet to try, also isn’t. The fundamental difference between a watch and a smartwatch is that a watch’s central functionality is to tell time in isolation. That’s the essential core goal of the science of horology, really. A watch can perform its functions perfectly from within a Faraday cage. A smartwatch can’t: its function is to be a node in a distributed network. That was easy to see in the first Pebble: it had all the physical gravitas of the cheapest Bic pen, but, eventually, it had amazingly varied functionality, via connectivity. The Apple looks like jewelry. It’ll aspire to heirloom status but I doubt it will ever be that. Attempts to render smartphones as power jewelry fail. The Apple watch, I imagine, will be a dead platform in a few years, no more collectible than old iPhones. Because it’s nothing, really, without access to a system, and the system constantly outgrows it, evolves beyond it."

[LumpHammer]

Definitely agree. I like my watch because the time is my own. On an Apple watch everybody else trying yo vibrate and beep their way to me owns it.

[VinnieVegas]

Good insight. I'm inclined to agree, too.

[james1787]

Originally Posted by LumpHammer

I like my watch because the time is my own. On an Apple watch everybody else trying yo vibrate and beep their way to me owns it.

Very true! I completely agree there.. great analogy.

[Tri-Tip]

I agree 100%, and by the same token, an iPhone, or any SmartPhone should not really be called a "phone". Telephone functionality is just one of it's features, and for many people, not even the main feature.

I think someone needs to come up with a new word to replace "Smartphone".

[Chadridv]

i tend to agree with everything said, except I feel it's short sighted to dismiss the potential collectability. The original iPods in mint condition have been known to sell upwards of $90k.

I'm not saying in anyway that this is my prediction for the apple watch, but I do see it as being short sighted to imply there is no collectability to these short lived tech based products, especially and specifically apple products.

[donq]

A big part of the appeal in those old I pods is
1) they have more memory than currently available ones.
2) they still work. They don't require an operating system to be updated to remain functional.

An apple watch that can't be used due to an obsolete o/s won't be very appealing.

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by donq

A big part of the appeal in those old I pods is
1) they have more memory than currently available ones.
2) they still work. They don't require an operating system to be updated to remain functional.

An apple watch that can't be used due to an obsolete o/s won't be very appealing.

I seriously doubt anyone spending $90k on an a mint condition "old" ipod is acquiring it for it's functionality, regardless of those 2 listed conveniences, which I don't believe to be the case anyhow. If the apple watch V1 finds it's way into the collectable market, the OS and function of the device will be insignificant.

However I have always agreed with you that whether it be the apple watch or an ipod, the technology and//or OS will be near obsolete within 5 years of their launches. I still have old ipods sitting around my office that are near worthless (in their current condition).

My only point is that in the OP the quote speaks about the collectability of obsolete tech like it's a non-factor in ownership, and I frankly disagree.

I won't go as far as calling any of these things gadgets "investments" but to rule out the possibility of future demand based on past trends is short sighted.

[tkerrmd]

Nice quote!

[srvrf]

It technically is a watch but really it's a wrist-worn, first generation communication device that also tells time. These will be more like phones-improved and upgraded every 1-2 years. I'm more interested in what it will become. I'm not even sure Apple knows this right now. Apple watches will end up on the wrists of a lot of kids and young adults. If their utility improves - solar power and better battery life, eventual autonomous functioning (not tethered to the phone), better ways of inputting data, it may become "indispensable" to the younger crowd. Then as they get older, they aren't looking to buy a Rolex or mechanical watch. It's not ditching my mechanical collection for my Apple Watch, but I'm one of the older guys already firmly entrenched in the mechanical camp. My kids care more about an Apple Watch than any of my mechanicals. To me they're the intended target audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Abdullah71601]

The iWatch is the modern analog of the Red Rider 100 shot BB Gun, with a compass in the stock, and a thing that tells time... A cool toy, but only good as an accessory to your smartphone. Both pretty much useless without reliable connectivity, which doesn't exist in some of the places I've been. Whereas my watch works just fine in those places.

Maybe it'll be collectible (think Commodore 64 before you answer), but more likely it will end up in the landfill with the rest of the outdated technology once its manufacturer stops supporting it.

[watchwatcher]

I would agree with that statement.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Tri-Tip

I agree 100%, and by the same token, an iPhone, or any SmartPhone should not really be called a "phone". Telephone functionality is just one of it's features, and for many people, not even the main feature.

I think someone needs to come up with a new word to replace "Smartphone".

I think smartphone is an apt name, because the device evolved from the basic cell phone and a term like pocket computer isn't better or more descriptive, but you're correct about functionality. The phone function of my S5 is the function I use the least by far.

[Abdullah71601]

A cell phone isn't really a phone, it's a two-way radio handset. A smart phone adds personal data features to the device, most of which are dependent on the radio to provide the functionality people want.

I think "smartphone" is here to stay though. It sings, and people are institutionalized to the term.