Las Vegas doesn’t have odds on when Apple Watch will die but some people think it’s dying. Or, being killed. So, what’s killing Watch? Is it some new wearable gear from Samsung? Is it Fitbit’s new Watch killer?
No. As it turns out, the killing of Apple Watch is being done by Apple itself. Wait. What? Why would Apple kill Watch? Isn’t Watch bigger than the entire Swiss watch industry? Isn’t Watch the leading smartwatch on planet earth? What happened?
Cut The Cord
Watch has a tethering problem that somewhat resembles the early iPod, circa 2001. Mac only. Watch is iPhone only and Graham Bower thinks iPhone dependence is killing Apple Watch.
For activity tracking, fitness and notifications, Apple Watch is pretty awesome, and these days, that’s all most people use it for. Which is a shame.
Translation: No different strokes for different folks for you folks.
Mine has a secret decoder ring app which lets me enter the White House without being carded. Let’s see. Tracking, fitness, and notifications, oh my!
What else is there?
When it launched back in 2015, Apple had a much bigger vision: a wearable computing platform supporting a rich and varied ecosystem of apps. Like an iPhone strapped to your wrist.
Alright, let’s stop the revisionist history here. Only Apple knows the bigger vision from a few years ago but if I’m not mistaken my Watch 1.0 had a few trackers, alerts, and notifications. And nobody said anything about it being an iPhone strapped to your wrist. A Mac in your pocket even sounds lame and that’s what an iPhone is, right? Right?
Instagram is just the latest of a series of high profile apps to desert the platform. So what’s up?
Nothing is up but reality, dude. Instagram was a stupid app for Watch but a great app for iPhone. Screen size alone should have told application developers not to try putting Photoshop or Final Cut Pro on Watch. Or, Instagram.
I believe Apple Watch’s dependence on iPhone is holding it back, and the time has come for Cupertino to set its smartwatch free.
OK, now that I’ll buy. If not this year, next year; but soon. Why? Think iPod and iTunes Music Store during the early days of the 21st century. iPod was Mac only. iTunes was Mac only. Back then the Mac represented about 2-percent marketshare vs. the Windows PC hegemony so it just made sense for Apple to port iTunes to Windows and make iPod work on Windows PCs.
Duh. No brainer, right?
That was then and this is now and times have changed but not all that much. The Mac might have barely double digit marketshare, but iPhone is a different animal. At least one third of the smartphone toting world is using an iOS device so how about making Watch available for the other 65-ish percent?
Duh. No brainer, right?
The why is easy. What about how?
Therein lies the rub. iPhone is standalone and a huge chunk of humanity owns an iPhone so Watch has a built in customer base. Being tethered to the iPhone is less of an issue than iPod tethered to the Mac.
Watch would need a way to set up and be configured. Trust me, it’s not going to be an app on that dinky little Watch screen. At least, not until Siri can read minds. How about a browser-based iCloud app that runs on Mac, iPhone, iPad, Windows PC, or even Linux? That would be cool and open Watch up to the 65-percent or so of smartphone users who do not have an iPhone.
Since the watch is not a stand-alone device, you’re unlikely to leave home without your iPhone. And if you have your iPhone with you, why bother trying to use your watch?
I understand the sentiment but the argument is flawed. Watch is not an iPhone replacement. Not yet.
Until Watch becomes standalone– and I think it will because Apple already told Watch app developers to make their apps to be standalone– Watch remains an iPhone accessory. It’s not yet a standalone product but all signs point to that changing coming; maybe even this year. Apple did something akin to standalone with iPod and iTunes Music Store.
iPhone is standalone already. Watch will be next.