Lessons learned from Microsoft’s pioneering—and standalone—smartwatches

In the mid-2000s, a generation of SPOT smartwatches came... and went.

Read the whole story

 

[dtich]

hey, is the headline supposed to say smartphone, or.. smartwatch?..

 

[Deleted member 330960]

dtich[/url]":3m6eizba]hey, is the headline supposed to say smartphone, or.. smartwatch?..

Edit: I thought dtich was joking, but there was an actual typo at the time. Anyway still funny.

 

[DrPizza]

dtich[/url]":2pv6eabn]hey, is the headline supposed to say smartphone, or.. smartwatch?..

Watch. Editors!

 

[ads2]

I've posted this in other threads, but tech writers are so focussed on the current Android/iOS war and the companies involve that they ignore the existance of a large and vigorous market of connected watches.

It is the atheletic market by Garmin, Suunto, Polar, and others. These devices are really amazing, and they are successful because they have a well-defined purpose, high build quality, and long battery life. They are wirelessly connected via Bluetooth 4/LE and ANT+. best place to get an idea of the market is the atheletic/tech blog DCRainmaker by Ray Maker.

People keep predicting that an iWatch or Android Wear device will replace these, but until those devices can work for 24 hours, navigate without a phone, connect to BT sensors, and do it all to 50m water depth, they will not compete. Having a touchscreen and a huge CPU is not the same as being a powerful device.

 

[realwarder]

All I know is that phones took watches away. Any watch that comes back has got to add serious value and the health sensor is really the only reason. Equally I'm not going to charge something daily, so it's got to be weekly or ideally monthly in terms of battery life. Make it kinetic charging or charge from my heat. Or both.

Do I really care about a screen? Nope, I have a phone for that...

So come on tech companies, make a screen-less human powered health sensor watch that just works forever. Maybe then I'll give you my wrist back.

 

[Jamjen831]

canned polar bear[/url]":1xugbks9]As is so often the case in the history of computing, these early, pioneering smartwatches were powered by Microsoft technology.

hmmm not so much. IBM's linux watch was around years before MS came out with theirs. I would raather learn lessons from them.

Yeah, but that wasn't a consumer product.

 

[Dilbert]

Hmmm. Altair, Palm Pilot, Netscape, CompuServe, BlackBerry (ouch!), Compaq iPaq. What do they all have in common?

Often (not always but often) it pays not to be a pioneer in tech. Learn from your competition and wait for better parts, and then release an improved 2nd or 3rd generation product.

MS came up with a smartwatch and a tablet long before Apple or Samsung or Google. And no one wanted them then.

Does anyone remember Microsoft Mira?

 

[SirBedwyr]

ads2[/url]":11r0rtzo]I've posted this in other threads, but tech writers are so focussed on the current Android/iOS war and the companies involve that they ignore the existance of a large and vigorous market of connected watches.

It is the atheletic market by Garmin, Suunto, Polar, and others. These devices are really amazing, and they are successful because they have a well-defined purpose, high build quality, and long battery life. They are wirelessly connected via Bluetooth 4/LE and ANT+. best place to get an idea of the market is the atheletic/tech blog DCRainmaker by Ray Maker.

For flexibility in training I increasingly value these: battery time, pace, pace-hold, time, distance, custom interval programming, and accuracy.

I still use an old Forerunner 305. The receiver is pretty marginal but I haven't upgraded yet because it's not clear how the newest crop of devices fit my needs. I want those 2-4 fields that I can just glance at and have power over. I really have no use for calorie burn rate or steps taken. I want to train, not track day-to-day energy expenditure.

 

[jimCA]

ubercurmudgeon[/url]":1b5t7g05] And by dibs I mean patents, the corporate equivalent of dibs.

I am sure they have a whole raft of patents they think are relevant. I'll bet IBM has a slew as well because I had a professor whose specialty was pervasive computing and he was doing that work at Watson before he retired and became a full time prof.

edit for [] format

 

[mrtsherman]

One of the perceived problems with today's crop of smartwatches is that in addition to being overpriced, battery hungry, and of limited utility, none of them are standalone devices.

Why do the recent Ars articles on smart watches keep bringing up that they aren't standalone devices. I don't know anyone, including my eldest relatives, that travel anywhere without their phone. What's wrong with being an extension of the phone? Does anyone outside a niche actually care these days?

And as evidence - isn't the proliferation of the phone the reason for the major decrease in watches?

I for one am looking forward to smart watches so I don't need to pull my phone out of my pocket and enter a passcode a hundred times a day. I used to wear a watch all the time, but my smart phone eventually supplanted it.

As opposed to a bunch of downvotes, I'd be interested in actual feedback. Is #1 the real draw for people?

Reasons proposed so far:

1. Escape the walled garden (Android only, Apple only, MS only, etc)
2. For the simple reason that really none of them work with Windows
3. People don't want to carry around giant phones, but want the Dick Tracy awesomeness of a truly smart watch
4. What's the point of another $150+ for something that does a poor job of telling me what the phone in my pocket is already telling me?
5. Don't want a big bulky thing on my wrist. Want something more like a FitBit.
6. I don't mind looking at my phone over a watch. So I don't see a lot of value add.
7. I want my hands free while cycling.
8. I want something that can last weeks on a charge, not a day

My responses to those reasons:

1. I feel like I've already bought into a walled garden with my phone, so I don't care
2. Working with Windows has never been a big draw for me. I can sync Outlook to android and get all my notifications on my watch. Indirect, but still does what you want? True for most other apps I imagine?
3. I agree a wrist mounted device that could do everything my phone does, just as well, would be awesome. But I don't think it realistically can. Big screens are useful. I would buy into a model where the watch is the brain and my phone is the extension (essentially a big screen with a big battery).
4. I don't want to take my phone out of my pocket. I think it would be an awesome extension of the phone.
5. Makes sense to me - doesn't explain why tie-in to a phone is bad though
6. Personally I'd prefer to avoid taking my phone out whenever possible.
7. Makes sense to me - doesn't explain why tie-in to a phone is bad though
8. I'd like that too, but wouldn't a standalone device use *less* power than a phone tied device? I'm not looking for reasons why you hate smart watches, I'm looking for reasons why a tie-in to a phone is not desirable.

I was actually expecting more responses around why people wouldn't have their phones on them. But they seem to all center around not liking the actual phone tie-in part. This certainly surprised me. I like having my phone! Some answers I was expecting, but didn't see.

1. I hate carrying a big, bouncy phone around when I run
2. I swim with my watch and want it to work without leaving my phone back on the beach or in the locker room

 

[iampanis]

I actually used to have the Suunto model. They were initially expensive, but eventually available on *very* cheap clearance sales because nobody wanted them. By far the most useful feature for me was the weather. I could check the forecast in the morning without checking the TV or booting up my desktop! There were also some desktop apps that you could use for things like forwarding RSS feeds or emails to the watch, just by sending yourself messages on MSN. Obviously this wouldn't be considered very useful today.

I also had one of the Fossil Wrist PDAs running Palm OS (again, very steep clearance sale after nobody wanted them). It was a cool novelty, but the battery life was an appalling 2 hours of screen on time - or 1 with the backlight turned on. And doing pretty much anything with it required pulling out the folding stylus embedded in the band.

 

[_SFF_]

I worked in a watch store in the mid 90's while in college, and we sold one of the very first smart watches ever: the Timex Datalink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Datalink). Ok, "sold" might be an exaggeration--I don't think we sold a single one, but I remember taking one home to see how it worked. You installed some custom Timex software on your 486, then when you were ready you held the watch up to the CRT which flashed a bunch of black and white patterns, and it would transfer things like phone numbers, birthdays, anniversaries, etc.

It totally blew my young nerd mind at the time, but was a total failure in the market.

 

[JButler]

I'm still not convinced there's a significant market for smartwatches. As a someone who don't wear even a traditional watch, I just don't see a killer app that's worth all the trouble (cost, charging, weight) of wearing a smartwatch on daily basis.

 

[canned polar bear]

Jamjen831[/url]":1wrd8vgv]

canned polar bear[/url]":1wrd8vgv]As is so often the case in the history of computing, these early, pioneering smartwatches were powered by Microsoft technology.

hmmm not so much. IBM's linux watch was around years before MS came out with theirs. I would raather learn lessons from them.

Yeah, but that wasn't a consumer product.

actually it was, they developed a consumer prototype with citizen but it was never released. however my issue was mostly with the statement that somehow 'microsoft technology' was pervasive in the pioneering aspect of computing which simply isn't true.

 

[JButler]

realwarder[/url]":3dg8z48r]All I know is that phones took watches away. Any watch that comes back has got to add serious value and the health sensor is really the only reason. Equally I'm not going to charge something daily, so it's got to be weekly or ideally monthly in terms of battery life. Make it kinetic charging or charge from my heat. Or both.

Do I really care about a screen? Nope, I have a phone for that...

So come on tech companies, make a screen-less human powered health sensor watch that just works forever. Maybe then I'll give you my wrist back.

I agree. But I think novelty of health sensor thing gets old pretty fast for most people outside of people with health issue or serious athletes in training.

 

[nehinks]

JButler[/url]":201f1sdu]I'm still not convinced there's a significant market for smartwatches. As a someone who don't wear even a traditional watch, I just don't see a killer app that's worth all the trouble (cost, charging, weight) of wearing a smartwatch on daily basis.

And speaking as somebody who does wear a watch, there are way too many compromises without enough additions to be worthwhile.

 

[rizzo420]

I don't think the tech was there to make standalone smart watches back then. At this point the tech is here, so making the watch dependent on a phone is just adding another layer to doing something, which is a bad idea.

 

[Jon Ghast]

mrtsherman[/url]":2he8d040]

One of the perceived problems with today's crop of smartwatches is that in addition to being overpriced, battery hungry, and of limited utility, none of them are standalone devices.

Why do the recent Ars articles on smart watches keep bringing up that they aren't standalone devices. I don't know anyone, including my eldest relatives, that travel anywhere without their phone. What's wrong with being an extension of the phone? Does anyone outside a niche actually care these days?

And as evidence - isn't the proliferation of the phone the reason for the major decrease in watches?

I for one am looking forward to smart watches so I don't need to pull my phone out of my pocket and enter a passcode a hundred times a day. I used to wear a watch all the time, but my smart phone eventually supplanted it.

I'd like them to be stand alone, for the simple reason that really none of them work with Windows.

 

[Fodder650]

The article is incorrect about the cost per year. I owned five of the watches and still have a few of them. One Suunto and a couple of the Fossils. The $60 a year was if you wanted Outlook Calendar integration. Otherwise you could do it for a cheaper price. I want to say it was $2 or $3 a month but for the life of me I can't remember now. The $60 was the second tier.
Thanks for running this story though. I've been telling people that I have been wearing smartwatches for nine years and no one believes me. As well as ones that didn't require a phones. When MSN Direct was shut down in 2012 I hadn't worn mine in about two years at that point. I picked up a Sony Smartwatch 1 when it came out in 2011 and then moved to a Pebble and finally the Gear Live recently. Still I have good memories of the SPOT watches and how you could get MSN Messages to your watches as well as the calender integration because I did pay for that second tier.

 

[DrPizza]

Fodder650[/url]":2cxzvk8j]The article is incorrect about the cost per year. I owned five of the watches and still have a few of them. One Suunto and a couple of the Fossils. The $60 a year was if you wanted Outlook Calendar integration. Otherwise you could do it for a cheaper price. I want to say it was $2 or $3 a month but for the life of me I can't remember now. The $60 was the second tier.

If you just wanted the MSN Direct channels, I think it was $40/year.

 

[speederk]

Wait a minute. That Swatch watch was just a fancy receiver. It had no transmitter in it. Same goes for the Seiko Receptor pager watch that came out in the mid 1990’s.

That “good old-fashioned FM radio” used (uses) a side carrier on local FM stations called SCA. Most major cities in the US still have this side carrier for data, and extra audio programming you just can’t get with a regular receiver. In my town, there are a few data carriers and then two other stations provide Russian and Vietnamese language programming. Some others in the region have reading for the blind.

edit: added photo

 

[hobgoblin]

GenocideOwl[/url]":1a76o5i0]until I can connect both a smart watch AND a headset to my phone....I am really just not that interested
The lockdown of only being able to have one at at time is a huge problem IMO.

Huh? Not a inherent element of how they are connected, thats for sure.

Seriously, some years back i use a "featurephone" from SonyEricsson as a Bluetooth "router" for a Nokia N800 while also playing music to a pair of Bluetooth headphones.

all but the simplest Bluetooth devices should be able to handle multiple active connections unless the OEM has screwed up badly.

 

[Deleted member 441963]

Some Suunto models included heart rate sensors and water resistance down to 100 meters.

Suunto (still) sells dive computers for technical divers, so what would be 100 meter actual depth, not watchmakers lies. Suunto also (still) makes very nice training computers with some navigation capabilities as well. They even have models with sapphire lenses. They brought out a whole new line a few months ago.

The past tense in the article is unnecessary for this Finnish product.

 

[JButler]

Jon Ghast[/url]":3ccjny6l]

JButler[/url]":3ccjny6l]

realwarder[/url]":3ccjny6l]All I know is that phones took watches away. Any watch that comes back has got to add serious value and the health sensor is really the only reason. Equally I'm not going to charge something daily, so it's got to be weekly or ideally monthly in terms of battery life. Make it kinetic charging or charge from my heat. Or both.

Do I really care about a screen? Nope, I have a phone for that...

So come on tech companies, make a screen-less human powered health sensor watch that just works forever. Maybe then I'll give you my wrist back.

I agree. But I think novelty of health sensor thing gets old pretty fast for most people outside of people with health issue or serious athletes in training.

Could this attitude be contributing to why America is so fat?

"I'm not sick, and I'm not an athlete, I don't need to worry about my health."


Edit: Maybe if people got a heart rate alert walking up a single flight of stairs, they'd pass on that third Quarter Pounder.

You missed my point. Even people who exercise don't need or want a device that tells your HR or how many miles you've run. Sure it's neat for someone new, but it gets old super fast. I bought an expensive Polar heart rate monitor long ago for workouts but never used it after couple weeks not because I stopped working out but because it's boring, unnecessary and actually gets in the way. These things tend to become more of a distraction after a while.

 

[Sufinsil]

ads2[/url]":1czfve4b]I've posted this in other threads, but tech writers are so focussed on the current Android/iOS war and the companies involve that they ignore the existance of a large and vigorous market of connected watches.

It is the atheletic market by Garmin, Suunto, Polar, and others. These devices are really amazing, and they are successful because they have a well-defined purpose, high build quality, and long battery life. They are wirelessly connected via Bluetooth 4/LE and ANT+. best place to get an idea of the market is the atheletic/tech blog DCRainmaker by Ray Maker.

People keep predicting that an iWatch or Android Wear device will replace these, but until those devices can work for 24 hours, navigate without a phone, connect to BT sensors, and do it all to 50m water depth, they will not compete. Having a touchscreen and a huge CPU is not the same as being a powerful device.

Yep. I started looking into GPS watches after the disappointing battery life of the current smartwatches and not wanting 24/7 tethered to the phone to do anything.

I have a $20 Wii U Fit Meter which does well enough calculating steps and calories but I want the ability to log routes and times. Without needing my phone.

 

[bicarb]

I want a wrap around smart forearm bracer/bracelet like 4x6 or something . Not a freaking watch. Wrist watchreplaced the pocket watch for many reasons, then pocket watch err cell phone replaced the wrist watch for utility and everything else. Give it a built in bt/pan earpiece WiFi & cellular capability. No matter how easy it is to leave my phone behind, I've never yet left my ARM behind & imagine the device attached to it would be a distant second in concern if I did somehow.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

In the early 2000s, Microsoft envisaged a range of smart devices

Part of innovation is, of necessity, timing.

Gates is happily doing his philanthropic work right now, but I bet a tiny part of him would love to be back working with the current crop of technologies making all those things he dreamed up a reality.

 

[jmshub]

_SFF_[/url]":2lb5kvvg]I worked in a watch store in the mid 90's while in college, and we sold one of the very first smart watches ever: the Timex Datalink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timex_Datalink). Ok, "sold" might be an exaggeration--I don't think we sold a single one, but I remember taking one home to see how it worked. You installed some custom Timex software on your 486, then when you were ready you held the watch up to the CRT which flashed a bunch of black and white patterns, and it would transfer things like phone numbers, birthdays, anniversaries, etc.

It totally blew my young nerd mind at the time, but was a total failure in the market.

I had one of those! It was an Ironman watch that I got for my birthday one year that had that little datalink sensor on it. I remember using the software to program the alarm on my watch a few times to play with, but that was about it.

 

[Viewer]

Microsoft's early attempts at tablets and smartwatches go alongside Apple's OpenDoc and CyberDog and Pippin as stale flops of tech history best forgotten. Writing a feature story on this in 2014 is weird. Most people, myself included, are still skeptical that the 2014 Android/iOS smartwatches will fare much better.

 

[Fodder650]

GenocideOwl[/url]":1gtpqbmv]until I can connect both a smart watch AND a headset to my phone....I am really just not that interested
The lockdown of only being able to have one at at time is a huge problem IMO.

You can already do both. I have with my Sony Smartwatch, Pebble, and Gear Live.

 

[gulthaw]

the company's silly "Internet time" that divides the day into 1,000 "beats" and abandons timezones

I still don't see what's "silly" on that; I always liked it, probably because at that time I was playing on US servers while being in EU and all this s**t about PST and EST drove me nuts, but I believe a standard time for everyone it was - and still is - a very good idea.

 

[Brevitic]

The value proposition of the "internet of things" is remote control and access and yet the design is probably for now going to run toward useless and gimmicky because else we're one hack away from a disastrous version of Pee Wee's Playhouse.

 

[sanloublues]

JButler[/url]":2fq1obps]You missed my point. Even people who exercise don't need or want a device that tells your HR or how many miles you've run. Sure it's neat for someone new, but it gets old super fast.

As a casual athlete who occasionally runs marathons and half marathons and has trained both with and without heart rate monitors, using heart rate zones instead of minute per mile paces for training targets is more effective at getting me in shape to finish near my goal time. That said, I'm running without the HRM now because I hate chest straps and the TomTom Cardio didn't come in purple (trite, but also the actual reasons).

Also, there's this anecdote about the guy who discovered his arrhythmia because he used one: http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2011/ ... ition.html

 

[BullBearMS]

That wasn't a smartwatch. That was a wrist pager.

Not a particularly advanced pager either, since the pagers from RIM could send a reply since the late 90's.

To be considered "standalone" it would have had to be able to transmit on it's own, not just receive.