I have had the apple watch for a week, and I am indifferent to having or not having it.
This I think is its problem. It is probably the first Apple Device that has been released without a sharp use case. I mean it is cool that I can answer phone calls from my wrist (A candidate who I interviewed for an hour could not tell I was talking from my Apple Watch). But it is not a necessity.
This is in essence the problem with wearables. To quote an article from the Economist :
"One measure of a wearable device's success is whether you would turn around for it if you were halfway to work—as you would for a smartphone. Yet market research suggests that consumers are not willing to make an about-face and fetch their fitness trackers"
That's an utterly ridiculous criterion/comparison. Of course, I'd turn around and go back home for the device that people expect to reach me on (irrespective of how 'smart' that device is - it's my phone after all).
The thing that smartwatches bring that fitness trackers didn't is a multi-function device. Each feature is incremental and by itself might not be compelling enough to care about long term, but add enough of them together and maybe then it can jump the chasm into everyday use (e.g. telling the time + fitness tracking + alerts + payments + quick comms + ???).
This I think is its problem. It is probably the first Apple Device that has been released without a sharp use case. I mean it is cool that I can answer phone calls from my wrist (A candidate who I interviewed for an hour could not tell I was talking from my Apple Watch). But it is not a necessity.
This is in essence the problem with wearables. To quote an article from the Economist : "One measure of a wearable device's success is whether you would turn around for it if you were halfway to work—as you would for a smartphone. Yet market research suggests that consumers are not willing to make an about-face and fetch their fitness trackers"
Ref: An year old. http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21613925-...