Ask Slashdot: What Features Belong In a 'Smartwatch'?

Nerval's Lobster writes "If the rumors are true, and Apple is indeed hard at work on a newfangled timepiece (dubbed the 'iWatch'), what unique features could such a device offer a public already overloaded with all sorts of handheld devices? Answer that question, and you're perhaps one step closer to figuring out why Apple — again, if the rumors are true — decided to devote millions of dollars and the precious hours of some very smart people in the effort. This article suggests voice control (via Siri), biometrics, mobile payments, and other possible features, but there must be loads of others that someone could think up."

Re:Time?

[gstoddart]

All I know is that the reported iPhone time is generally anywhere from a couple of seconds to over a minute off the time reported from an NTP-synced computer.

I can't speak to an iPhone, but I know my cell phone takes its time from the actual carrier.

So it's well within the bounds of reason that yours is doing the same -- and if your carrier is using a clock which is slightly different from your NTP-synced computer, that could account for the drift.

One of the things that's really nice about that, is when I travel it picks up local time and I don't need to set it.

And, slightly more on topic ... I'm clearly not the target market for this product. I can't figure out why I'd want a voice activated watch, or biometrics, or mobile payments on my watch. Then again, I wouldn't want those features on my cell phone either. This just feels like one of those technology for the sake of it products.

I'm sure there's features a lot of people will say are the coolest ever and be willing to plunk down money for it. Me, I prefer a device meant to do one thing well instead of 10 things half-assed -- which is why I own actual cameras, music players, and GPS nav units instead of something which kinda does most of those things.

It's cool in a Dick Tracy kind of way, but I prefer my watches to just be watches.

Of course, I'm sure "hey baby, want to see my iWatch" would be an awesome pickup line. So there is that. ;-)

But, as much as I absolutely hate the term, the iWatch and iPhone combo seems like it would be a flashing sign that says "hipster douchebag".

Re:Time?

[Obfuscant]

Sony came out with this kind of thing several years ago for the Ericsson phones, called Liveview [sonymobile.com]. It was basically a remote display for the phone using bluetooth. I bought one assuming it would work on Android phones in general, and of course it didn't.

It was supposed to support things like Facebook and show you email alerts, along with being a basic watch. It came with a watchband and a clip housing, one of which (I forget which) completely covered the USB charging port and you had to pop it out to plug it in. It was almost working as a watch, but the limited button UI was a mess and difficult to remember/use.

Interesting concept, poor implementation.

What is most important is that it show the time (synced to the local phone network so it is accurate). Second would be incoming SMS/email (so you don't have to pull a phone out of your pocket to get messages.) Music player control. It has to have an inductive charger plus a standard USB, so you can recharge it away from home or just drop it on the charging pad at night when you aren't.

Re:Time?

[Snotnose]

I can't speak to an iPhone, but I know my cell phone takes its time from the actual carrier.

If you have CDMA your phone needs to be within something like 10 milliseconds of the carrier's time. I imagine GSM has similar requirements.

Re:Time?

[dgatwood]

The time stamp used in CDMA packets doesn't have anything to do with the OS-level system clock. You certainly could synchronize the system clock to a time value provided by the cellular chipset, but there's no inherent reason that you must do so. The time being shown on the phone's screen could say 3:00 last year and it still wouldn't affect telephony. :-)