It's Pebble Time: taking on the mighty Apple Watch

The best personal tech should be invisible. Not literally, that would be unhelpful. But it should fit into your life seamlessly, without significant adjustment to your life, unless it augments it. Smart phones are a brilliant example: you already had a mobile phone, but here's one with more sensors and downloadable apps. Super productivity or super distraction? Your choice, but either way you're ostensibly happier.

Henry Graves Supercomplication Pocket Watch

Remember pocket watches? No, I never wore one either, but I imagine they were the mobile phones of their day. Before them, you had to find or hear a clock somewhere, usually a church or a school or a station. Suddenly you had the power of time in your hand. 

Then, in 1968 Patek Phillipe made, arguably, the first wrist watch. It was intended as jewellery for ladies, who often didn't have pockets for a watch. As the technology improved and became more rugged, soldiers adopted them. The pocket watch didn't fade away, it just added features, culminating in the Henry Graves Supercomplication, made by Patek Phillipe in 1933 and still the most expensive watch in the world ($24m at last auction in November 2014).

Point is, the problem of conveniently telling the time was, effectively, solved with the wrist watch. But it has barely evolved since. Despite watchmakers' enduring ability to sell absurdly overpriced lumps of metal because they'd work on the moon, or at 10,000ft underwater, these lumps are functionally redundant, for the most part. Like handkerchiefs. Most millennials don't wear a watch because they have a smart phone with network/atomic accuracy.

So if you're selling a smart watch you're either trying to persuade a youngster to wear something useful on their wrist, or persuade an older person to replace their expensive birthday present for something more useful and equally elegant.

Smart watch?

The original Pebble was a great concept in 2013: a watch that listens to your phone (both Android and iOS!) and lasts a week. Biggest Kickstarter project ever at the time. And they delivered what they promised. Now, I'm a big watch fan, have about eight at any given time, but it didn't attract me because the screen was black and white only and the case was too big. It looked like a 90s Nintendo Gameboy for your wrist. Without the retro fun.

The original Pebble. Neat but ugly.

But earlier this year Pebble ran another Kickstarter campaign to build the Time: promising colour screen and slim form factor yet still the 5 day battery life. All the other smart watch makers are targeting looks and features, but these guys are sticking with their formula and refining it. Many people scoffed at the paltry 64 colours and lack of touchscreen, but those of us with some electronics knowledge realise that full colour touchscreens burn battery life, and what's the point of a watch you have to plug in every day? Might as well just use your phone. At $189 it's $100 cheaper than a Casio Pathfinder or Citizen Ecodrive. So why on earth not? I backed it.

Pebble Time!

It's very light - feels lighter than the strap - and pretty slim. The strap is smooth and soft, with a little stretch to it. One of the best I've worn in terms of chafing, which is no small thing for my hairy wrists. After 10 mins wearing it I pretty much forgot it was there, so big tick in the 'invisible' box.

Screen

Classic elegance... with weather

While the screen is a decent size, there's still a lot of real estate not used. No doubt Pebble sought to maximise screen size within technical constraints, but what about solar panels in the frame or that outer bezel? Even though a Pebble consumes about 5x the power of a solar watch, like a Pathfinder, solar top-up could still potentially increase battery life by 20%.

Outdoors... with stats

The screen is a bit dim in some light, needing a shake of the wrist to activate the backlight. Not a big issue (I know many lump of metal wearers who have their straps so loose they have to wiggle their wrists to haul the watch into view anyway), but there's currently no control of the backlight timer, so it may fade too quickly causing you to have to shake again. Frustrating, but easily rectified (please, Pebble!). Thankfully, there are loads of watchfaces, and many have colour configuration options, so it's easy to find one that is hi-viz.

Notifications

It's a similar story for notifications: I can't control them as well as I'd like in two ways: first, being able to mute some apps. You can do it on the phone, but why not on the watch too? Secondly, there's just one buzz signal. I've seen pebble apps that offer multiple buzz combinations, and it would be great to make better use of these in notifications. I don't know if the Time buzz motor supports variable strengths, but that would be great too.

Buttons & gestures

The buttons are excellent, and the motion sensor is really well tuned to different movements, which some apps, like the OutDoorWatch app (above), use to great effect. Move your arm laterally, like throwing a frisbee, toggles the bottom section of the screen to switch displays between, say, a barometer graph and a compass. Shake your wrist side to side once slowly and the middle section changes. With the combination of buttons and wrist shakes I don't miss a touch screen.

Battery

Battery life is as advertised: 4-8 days depending on use. 4 days if you're mucking about with it all the time, and using watchfaces that update the weather every 20 mins.

Microphone

The watch has a mic for voice control, but it's not well supported yet. This could be a brilliant addition to a beautifully simplistic watch, allowing you to literally call up all those voice-enhanced features of your smart phone from your wrist: voice memos, Siri or Google Now etc.

Apps

As you look through the Pebble App store you get the sense that developers are either waiting for the crowd's reaction, or being passively discouraged by the incumbent app store owners. Not only did Apple delay release of the Pebble Time app on the iOS AppStore (they relented after a social media campaign), but they have made some of the API functionality of iPhones exclusive to the Apple Watch, shutting out Pebble from offering some more enhanced features in the iOS version. No such apparent limitations on the Android version, so the Android version of the Pebble app has better app features available than the iOS version. Let's hope Apple play fair and open it up. There's plenty of room in this fledgling market, and no need for Kickstarter-backed David vs biggest market-cap in the world Goliath.

The trouble is that this sort of friction makes third party developers jittery. So while some of the main app contenders, like Evernote and RunKeeper have Pebble apps, some of their competitors, like Strava and OneNote don't.

In addition to their C-based development environment, Pebble have released a Javascript framework intended to attract non-hardcore developers to lash their mobile app APIs to a simple Pebble app. I haven't tried it, but the fact that I'm tempted says a lot for this little device. 

Smart Straps?

As you see from the picture above of the back of the Pebble, the strap has quick-release pins for so-called smart straps. These are add-ons that offer more hardware features, like more sensors or batteries, or both. This could be a killer feature, if you think about it. Some ideas here.

Conclusion

The Pebble Time is light and almost invisible, and has fitted into my life seamlessly: I'm not scurrying around to find charging points, nor am I stroking it every five minutes like a cat with ball of wool. The subtlety of wrist-based notifications is not to be under-estimated: a quick glance at your wrist is significantly less effort than hauling that buzzing widescreen out of your pocket only to find that you've received a spam text. The apps that I do have are also just right for the wrist: running app, music app, misfit app, authenticator app, travel app - those activities that you don't want to be digging out your phone for. 

So there's all that subtlety and convenience that Apple Watch reviewers have been raving about. Except this watch costs half an Apple. 

There's another Apple-beating convenience too: the biggest convenience factor in every watch since Patek Phillipe's in 1868: battery life. The only Apple watch reviews I've seen that have reported battery life to be 'fine' are by techies who probably already plug in five devices a day. Let's see if real consumers are just as glowing about one day of battery life after the novelty has worn off. I don't doubt that it's a beautiful piece of kit, but is it useful enough to warrant daily charging? Unless it replaces your phone completely, like the wrist watch did the pocket watch, it never will be.

My only concern with the Pebble Time is that its potential never gets fulfilled; that it gets crushed by less functional but more glamorous and wealthy competitors. In these days of social media and crowdsourcing they don't need much clout to hold their own and gather support, but they need to do it fast.

Show us some smart straps, get that damn mic working, sort out the notification buzzes and we could have a winner here!

Occam's mobile

Mobile phones are making too many assumptions. I got an iPhone 6 back in October, and a refurbished iPad mini 2 for Christmas. So I've been pondering this for a while... In this age of miniaturisation it may have struck many people as odd that Apple increased the size of their latest iPhone version. The iPhone 5 had a 4" screen, and now the iPhone 6 has a 5" screen, with the iPhone 6 plus having an even larger screen. Whatever Apple's actual reasoning, it's evident that big, flat phones are selling, as shown by the popularity of the Samsung Galaxy range of phones, some of which border on comedic in size.

But why?

Mobile phones have always been about portability, which is a combination of size and weight. But smart phones add another, much more complex dimension: functionality. Fundamentally, this is about 'the potential to do more', and has always been a key aspect of computing. For years the attractiveness of personal computers was deemed, at least by PC and software marketing people, to be about functionality: just look at all the stuff you can do with this thing!

The fact that most of us didn't use most of these features (an oft-cited myth was that no individual used more than 10% of any given Microsoft Office app) didn't seem to matter. It was the potential.

It seems that those same marketing people have migrated to the mobile space and have opted to hit the same buttons: more speed, more functions, more, more, more.

Less, please.

My iPhone 6, for all its curvy, groovy, big-screen, slim, slick styling, is too big. It's too big for me to hold securely while my thumb touches the button at the bottom to unlock it. It's slightly too bulgey in my trouser pocket, looking either like an armour plate or a dislodged codpiece, depending on my self-esteem that particular day. Initially, I liked the larger screen: bigger than my iPhone 5, so easier on the eyes. A bit easier to read a book, type a decent length email, or watch a video longer than a couple of minutes. But only a bit.

I wasn't planning to get an iPad. I had an iPad 2 and found it too limited to be a laptop replacement, and too bulky to carry around with the laptop. But I saw a refurbed iPad mini going cheap, so bought it. Now the iPhone 6 screen feels too small. The iPad mini is roughly paperback book size. I've carried paperback books on my travels since I could read. "Always have a book". It was ingrained into me as much as brushing my teeth. The iPad is that book in multimedia form. What's more, I have found that I use it for tasks that I would previously have done on my phone. So I've removed those non-essential apps from my phone in favour of the iPad.

I've dumbed my smart phone down. Now the functionality of the device is much more aligned to its portability. Notifications, quick replies, handy utilities, like maps and calculator, small games - all fine on the phone. Anything else deemed worthy of delving into a bag for goes on the iPad mini.

So what's the point of that bigger screened iPhone 6? No point. I'm eying up my old iPhone 5 and contemplating switching back.

Cybersecurity: quis custodiet ipsos custodes

This article caught my eye this morning. The first clear example I've seen, beyond glib soundbytes, of a prominent politician opposing an increase in government monitoring powers. The article includes quotes from Boris Johnson (mayor of London) and David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) justifying reasons for increased govt monitoring of its population.

The phrase 'in principle' seems to abound in such discussions. With good reason. I don't think anyone opposes the notion that all terrorists should be monitored closely. The trouble, for the government security people, is that they don't know who all the terrorists are, and by the time they know it's usually too late: membership is typically indicated by the wearing of explosives and/or the bearing of automatic rifles. So the simplest solution advocated by government security people is to allow them to monitor all communication, even the encrypted stuff. Fine in principle (if you're not a terrorist), but it has some severe practical issues.

The most often cited issue is privacy.
"What right does the government have to spy on me?" says Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
It's irrelevant.
If your neighbour was a terrorist then I'm sure that you'd advocate that they have every right, along with the right to hang them. In order to mitigate acts of terrorism government security people need the capability to intercept terrorist communications. So the issue is not the powers, it's the use of those powers or, more specifically, the potential for abuse of those powers.

Who watches the watchmen?
That's the translation of the latin in the title (taken from Juvenal's Satires). Evidently this is an issue as old as civilisation - arguably, a defining attribute of civilisation. By advocating such surveillance powers, a government is asking its demos, its populace, to trust it. It is implying that it is not interested in your personal life: your medical or financial history, your tax returns, your infidelities or predilections. Just your security. And, in principle, it may be right. But in practice, the government is nothing more than a body of individuals, with personal agendas, of whom significantly less than 10% are publicly elected. Who is to say that my information will categorically not be abused?

If democratic governments are serious about requiring the powers to intercept (even encrypted) communications, they need to demonstrate how they plan to protect those powers from abuse. So far, there seems to be a suspicious reluctance to do so.

The future of database technologies is pretty interesting, actually.

There's a good article here (ZDNet) about the future of databases. Key points:-

• It's not just about SQL and 'noSQL', it's about data applicability. I couldn't agree more! There's so much blather about whether SQL is better than 'noSQL', and it all completely misses the point.
• Most of this technology is open source, in some form. That is truly the awesome bit. It means that anyone so inclined can learn this stuff, practice it, master it and do incredible things with it.

Why is this important? Because databases are at the root of everything online. All that personal data you store in the cloud? Photos, emails, facebook stuff... it's all on databases. A few years ago everything was relational databases. There were other types, but they were 'specialised' and usually pricey, or academic. The best relational databases were not free, either. Now it has all changed, and much for the better.

Information Mobility

The ebb and flow of technological innovation is always most visible through the divergence and convergence of solutions to a particular set of use cases. Solutions diverge as innovation flourishes in new area where there are no standards and few rules. A plethora of options appears, then conventions are established. These gradually harden into standards, as dominant players emerge, and innovation ebbs. Or, more commonly in technology, flows into the next use case: ecommerce was the innovation ground until Amazon and eBay perfected it and the innovation moved to mobile.

In information technology the innovation use case, right now, is consumer connectivity. Social networks are the most direct symptom of this craving need. But it's clear that the need is broader than our friends' news feeds. 'Information mobility' is probably the most accurate label I can think of to describe the current innovation battleground.

The cloud and big data are simply grist for the mill: essential ingredients to staking a claim in the information mobility market and harvesting results. Example: it seems every app on my phone wants to see my contacts list. Why? Because it's effectively a prospects list for them. That's why every consumer-oriented company on the planet wants you to download their app: they want your rolodex. And we let them have it - cheaply. For the sake of crushing electronic candy.

Mobile devices are starting to converge on standards. You can still get a touchscreen for any size from 3" to 12", but the newest phones are congregating around 5"-6" and tablets 8"-10". With this convergence, the walls between vendor software ecosystems are increasingly being tested because people want their information anywhere. They want information mobility. If they cannot use your service from any device they may choose, why should they pay for it?

Smart devices and wearables

Are wearables the next big thing? Eventually, yes. But the benefits have to significantly outweigh the issues. My old Nokia 2110 phone could go without a charge for 5 days. Nearly all smartphones last less than 24 hours. Phone charging has become a cultural thing, be it the nest of cables in that part of the kitchen at home, or the sponsored pillar in the departure lounge. We don't mind because the utility of our smart phones is is massively greater than our old mobile phones. But will the same be said for wearables?

The concepts are brilliant: I love the short advertising movies about all the cool stuff you can do with your watch/glasses. But none of them mentions battery life. The Apple watch video mentions, at one point, the ability to monitor your health 'all day'. Google Glasses' battery life is about 3 hours. My Casio ProTrek PRW-3000 never needs charging (it's solar powered) and, in addition to monitoring temperature, atmospheric pressure and my direction, it is calibrated to an atomic clock every night. So it offers a bunch of useful to marginally-useful features for free, effectively. I don't need to disrupt my life worrying about whether it's charged, or accurate, or needs an update. It's a watch. We already have phones for portable smart stuff. They are so ubiquitous they might as well be wearable. So the real questions are:

1. What are the watches/glasses going to give me that my phone doesn't already?
2. Will it be worth the hassle of charging them at least once a day?

The mass market answers are, and will be for some years to come: 1. not much; 2. no.

Now, when the solar-powered ones, with colour e-ink screens start rolling out, then we have Watch 2.0. Until then, feel free to keep giggling at the chunky wrist and head gear crowd constantly looking for charging points.

As for the current set of portable smart stuff, the key advantage that Android has over iOS is choice. Not just a plethora of hardware options, but OS choices too - from roll-your-own to plain vanilla. And as Google get to grips with their Nexus line, and their Nest products, they may supersede Apple by addressing their core offering: no-fuss, tightly-integrated smart devices.

Don't get me wrong: I love Apple devices. I love the design, the childlike simplicity of them - they all pass the 'granny' test, unlike... well, any of my Android devices. But the business model irritates me. No, not the 30% App Store tax. That's just pricing. It's the disingenuity: Apple say that they want a seamless customer experience, unsullied by 3rd parties' lesser offerings. So why disallow users to buy Kindle books in the Amazon iApp? Because it competes with iBooks. Or disallow the Google Voice app? Because it competes with their network partners.

This is hardly 'doing what's best for customers'. It's doing what's best for Apple in the short term. In the long run it allows complacency to creep in because, as in sport, if you don't continue to compete with the best, on equal terms, you lose your edge. So, it's a finite game, highly dependent on lack of user tech-sophistication: such users want Apple to make the smart choices for them. But as their tech knowledge/skills evolve, they seek to make their own choices. iOS 8 is starting to open up, with 3rd party keyboards, and 3rd parties allowed to have space in the Notifications area. But you still get the sense that they are conceding ground grudgingly, rather than keeping the playing field level and beating their competitors through better products. On the hardware side, Apple still make the highest grade (and highest margin) devices on the market, but as the size and shape of smart device choices start to multiply (you can get a screen for just about every inch between 3.5 and 12 inches), one wonders whether they can keep up.

So where does the Apple watch fit in? Contrary to prevailing (fawning?) journalism, I think this is Apple playing catch-up. They are a hardware business at heart, after all, so if they don't have a wearable offering they could be in trouble. This is something that Google don't need to worry about because their platform is open: if they don't build it, someone else will, using their platform. It might compete with their own offering, but that just means they have to evolve faster.

And for the reasons mentioned at the start of this note, wearables will be all about speed of evolution.

OS no-OS

Every once in a while an article appears saying something like "the OS is irrelevant because everything is on the Web now".

Yet, why can't I use my iApp on my android? Or on my mac, for that matter?

The current stress point in software is the OS. Apps are proof that the Web, while being a wondrously sticky medium, has a long way to go in democratising devices. If I want to build an app to be used across all devices I must build it for browser use. Or I must build 6 concurrent versions of it (3 desktop OSes, and 3 mobile OSes), which is not cheap, and depending on the app, not effective use of resources. In practice I'll pick the 2 most popular, usually Windows + either Android or iOS and extend when the revenue or funding kicks in. 

But why can't the browser do it all? Surely if the browser was the OS, we wouldn't need apps? Well, HP actually tried it with Web OS. As with so many of HP's recent innovations, it was a brilliant concept poorly executed. The devices were under-powered, and the marketing was crap. The HP Veer is still, physically, one of the nicest phones I've ever held.

And now we have chrome and chromebooks able to run Android apps.  Presumably Apple will follow, with OSX able to run IOS apps. But what about Apple TV too? It would need a better input device, like Kinect. Talking of Kinect, Microsoft, ironically, are probably the closest to seamlessness between their devices, with Windows, Windows Mobile and Xbox software all being sold in the one marketplace. Shame their user interface and many of their apps are so inconsistent. 

The thing is, apps are the best way to lock users into your platform. And for hardware makers, like Apple, the platform is everything. It is not in their interest for you to be able to run everything on the Web. It is in Google's interest: a cynic's view of Android is that it is a Google knowledge capture and advert delivery system. It's also in Microsoft's interest: they are laggards in both cloud and mobile, but gaining fast by slipstreaming the leaders. Google and Microsoft are software businesses, and even Microsoft have proven themselves bold in building apps for other OSes. They know that the proprietary app phenomenon is temporary: one day everything will run through your browser, on any device.