The Elusive iWatch

3d-question-mark_full_medium

I believe most folks have fallen under the spell cast by the moniker "iWatch" that muks up a lot of the thinking around such a device.

It would be an error on Apple’s part to name the purported device "iWatch" or even include the word 'watch' in its promotion. It makes no sense for Apple to compete with the narratives associated with such a term (i.e accessory, luxury, time piece, tradition, cheap, complications, complex etc). Look at the onerous terms and expectations you’ve placed on the device before you even begin!

It will be imperative to conceptualize from a blank slate the idea of wearable technology – computing invisible enough to be worn ubiquitously but capable of capturing and quantifying human data. Doing so frees one from the conceptual frameworks and mental networks wired around current archetypes.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/iphone-could-have-been-named-telepod-mobi-tripod-or-even-ipad/

In the above link is a good example of how a name can really detract from how a product can be conceptually thought about. At the outset, Apple really did see the original iPhone as a "combination phone + iPod + internet communications device" and the name TriPod, which was on its shortlist, could have codified that perspective and conceptual framework both internally and within the public imagination. We saw vestiges of that thinking in the way they handled the evolution of the iPhone before the App Store exploded.

In short the "iWatch" is not a watch. Disabuse yourself of everything you know about watches which will not only release you from the conceptual trappings that we use to understand the term but give you a new starting point to envision what can a new wearable computer look like.


Then you will have your answer. Otherwise you doom yourself to too small a box.