We're excited about
wearables.
That's because we’ve been
promised an exciting world of connected technology that brings
convenience, intrigue and the next stage in social evolution.
Yet all we’ve seen are a
few chunky watches most of which are brainless without a smartphone within a
five meter radius.
Still, with Apple expected
to enter the wearables fight next week - a fight that currently seems to be
lacking any real combatants - we’re beginning to wonder if 2014 is the year for
wearable technology to break through.
And if it isn’t, will we
have lost interest in favour of the next trend (likely virtual reality) by
2015?
Watch-ing and waiting
Smartwatches
are leading the wearable way, but we’ve actually been here before (well, some
of us older misanthropes have, anyway). Remember calculator watches? They might
seem amusingly archaic now, but in the mid-80s these things were seriously
futuristic.
So many different ways to 2+2
We paid a lot of money to
strap a calc-watch to our arm, but ultimately had to hang our wrists in shame
and admit that the limited demand for a conveniently located electronic adding
machine didn’t justify the cost of owning, and regularly replacing the
batteries in, such a device.
When we look down to check
the time on a battery-devouring smartwatch, and see a blank face staring back,
will we feel an irritated pang of nostalgia for the calculator watch?
Wearables need to identify
a problem, and deliver a convenient solution.
Perhaps not, if the
smartwatch has paid its dues during the day and delivered some form of essential
purpose. Currently, notifications and health tracking seem to be the areas
where smartwatches have justified their existence, and we’ve seen some decent
headway.
These aren’t overly smart
devices, but unlike the calculator watches, they do fulfil a specific and
useful function. In the end, that could be the saviour of wearable technology.
As long as they look
nice...
How sexy is smart?
Despite what the Big
Bang Theory would have us believe, ‘smart’ isn’t necessarily all that
sexy. And yet, we’re rather hung up on the smartness of wearables.
When
the watches began to appear, a major criticism was that they needed to hook up
to a smartphone to actually fulfil the ‘smart’ aspects of their namesake. True
enough, this is probably more of a problem with vernacular than it is with
technology, but nonetheless; manufacturers are too eager to label their gear as
being smart, and this brings certain expectations that, so far, haven’t been
met.
Do you need longer arms?
In fact, there’s nothing
wrong with ‘dumb’ wearable tech. Wearables needn’t necessarily offer ubiquitous
computing, or deliver a whole platform of functions like your smartphone or
tablet does. They just need to identify a genuine problem, and deliver a single,
workable, convenient solution. The trouble is, we’re seeing more solutions than
there are problems.
Wearable technology needs
to look good.
Wearable tech is more
likely to find purchase if it provides a function that benefits our everyday
lives and, perhaps most important of all, it looks good.
This sounds superficial,
but it’s the raw truth of successful consumer adoption.
That's one of the reasons
that while all the early smartwatches were rectangular in form, pre-iWatch, the
very sexy, very circular Moto 360 remains the most desirable smartwatch.
Companies such as LG are now also coming up with more traditional circular form
factors to compete.
Through the looking glass
In this manner, I think
attractiveness is a major drawback for another wearable, Google Glass, which
despite not having been 'officially' released yet has a growing number of apps
available, so functionally, at least, it’s working.
These range from
photography apps to navigation to social networking, and all privacy issues
aside, they do suggest that a heads-up-display for everyday life could find
traction. But not while it looks like a metallic unibrow with a lens missing.
All
it needs is a sticking plaster wrapped around the nose bridge, and Google Glass
will have been properly beaten with the technological ugly stick. People just
won’t wear it in public, no matter how useful it might become.
You think you're looking smart but we think you look odd
Maybe that's why rumours
abound that RayBan has been drafted in by Google, which could be just what
Glass needs to bridge the disparate realms of functional technology and
appealing design.
Function follows form?
If function can be blended
with style, as companies like Cuff are attempting to do with jewelry that
invisibly delivers notifications and a single interaction with your smartphone,
real uses for wearables might slowly begin to reveal themselves.
Of course, Apple could be
the real saviour here. We’re predicting that Cupertino will go down the health
route in trying to make its imminent smartwatch functionally appealing, since
this is one of biggest opportunities for wearable technology. But it’ll be
coupled with Apple’s renowned proficiency at sexy design that'll be the gateway
to your wrist (and wallet).
If nothing else, the iWatch
will look good, and that’s what’ll make it appealing. Once it’s established as
something cool that people want to wear, maybe developers can begin to deliver the functional side of the underlying tech.
But this will take
time. Remember, iPhone wasn’t all that usable when it first arrived?
Softwear
The iPhone drove smartphone
popularity thanks to its games (something Steve Jobs didn't really like), and
that’s another area wearables will have to tackle successfully to be
successful.
Developers will undoubtedly
try to break into this new market through whatever means
possible; it might be as simple as tapping at a wearable to interact with a
game on some basic level, but here at Pocket Gamer we’ve seen plenty of
fantastic ‘one thumb’ games, so it’s certainly not impossible.
The Moto 360 is sexy because it looks like a watch
And with updates such as
greater Bluetooth integration and standalone GPS just around the corner, your
wearable tech could easily begin to take a more active role in games like Ingress, Zombies, Run! and any other location or
movement-aware entertainment that comes along in the wake of readily accessible
geotagging.
It’s interesting to
consider how, not so long ago, game designs were constantly waiting for
technology to catch up, and make them possible. Massively online multiplayers,
for instance. We wanted those, and the concept existed long before a capable
network was in place to make them a practical, playable reality.
Wearables seem to be
suffering the inverse problem.
The technology is, for the
most part, there. We can bend a touchscreen around your arm, make it thin
enough to strap about your person, and include the essentials of electronic
connectivity to remove any need for cumbersome wiring. And yet, ideas for what
to do with these devices seem to be lacking.
It’s not the inability to
create wearable tech that’s likely to starve this industry, so much as an empty
idea jar when it comes time to put some tasty filling in these electronic
sandwiches and sell them to a public that's hungry but doesn't know exactly
what for.
No comments:
Post a Comment