The wear, why and how

“IN THE beginning was Apple. All things were made by it; and without it was not anything made that was made.” If technophiles were to write their own Testament, these might be the opening lines. Apple’s ability to redefine the appeal of whole categories of computing has attracted the unerring faith of millions of followers. Apple has popularised existing technologies four times: with the Macintosh computer in 1984, the iPod in 2001, the iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010. Recently the faithful have prayed that Apple will pull it off again with its smartwatch. Many firms already make wrist-based devices that measure sleep patterns and exercise, but so far the category has remained a niche plaything for geeks and athletes.

On March 9th the firm gathered its flock to share details about the Apple Watch, which will go on sale next month. Tim Cook, its boss, called it “the most advanced timepiece ever created”. In addition to telling the time, it can respond to voice commands, measure its wearer’s heart rate, act like a credit card at payment points and provide alerts for incoming calls and e-mails. It can display many of the apps that are popular on smartphones, such as those of social networks, without the hassle of having to pull out a phone.

With prices ranging from $350 to as much as $17,000, the Apple Watch will make the company billions in revenue, although analysts have varied expectations for how big the bang will be (see chart 1). In the near future the watch is unlikely to match the success of some of Apple’s other creations, which have been among the best-selling technology products in history. Its battery lasts for just 18 hours before it needs more juice from a magnetic charger. The Apple Watch also needs to be close to an iPhone in order to function, which detracts from its usefulness.

The launch of the Apple Watch points to a broader story: high expectations that wearable technology will soon take off. Wearables, mobile devices containing circuitry to gather and display information, include a diverse wardrobe of products, such as clothes that measure exertion and glasses that overlay information and augmented images on real-life vistas. Some 21m wearable devices were sold last year, according to IDC, a research firm; wrist-worn wearables, including watches, were the majority.

Consumers are prepared to spend reasonable sums for wearables (see chart 2). But even so, their interest in buying them is still some way behind the enthusiasm shown by the many hardware companies investing heavily in designing them. Giants like Samsung, Motorola, Microsoft and Huawei are all developing smartwatches, as are smaller companies like Pebble. Google, which tried to develop a pair of smart specs called Google Glass with limited success, is now focusing on providing the operating system of choice for smartwatches. In wearables it is more likely that companies will make a fortune from the operating system than from selling the hardware.

Sportswear companies are competing to develop jerseys, shoes, and bras loaded with sensors and wireless circuitry. Firms’ ambitions range from the critical to the cuddly. Several companies are offering small gadgets that use GPS technology to track children who might wander off, for example. CuteCircuit, a British startup, has designed a smart shirt that reproduces the feeling of being hugged when someone sends the wearer a text message.

Health is an area of particular promise. Watches and other wearables can help people monitor their activity and encourage them to exercise. Apple’s watches provide “haptic feedback”: they vibrate to give alerts to wearers, such as reminding them to stand up if they have been sitting too long (as your correspondent has been while writing this). The watch will also offer new data-gathering capabilities for studying health (see article). These are the early days of the “quantified self” movement, in which people track lots of data about themselves for personal use, and perhaps to share with companies.

Thanks largely to the smartphone boom, chips and sensors have become cheaper and smaller. This has helped wearables move “from a ‘Star-Trek’-like dream to reality,” says Stacey Burr of Adidas, a sportswear-maker. But it may be five years or so before their full potential starts to be realised. “We are in the Palm Pilot days for wearables,” she says, referring to an extinct ancestor of the smartphone.

Several things have held back smartwatches and other wearables. Many have a short battery life, which limits their appeal. With Moto 360, Motorola’s smartwatch, as an exception, most can only make calls or perform other functions if an accompanying phone is nearby. Many consumers have little interest in another device that cannot serve as a substitute for what they already carry around.

Putting the “wear” in wearable

Wearables have so far lacked the elegant design and ease of use that helped smartphones ring in such success. Even the fashion models who were hired to strut around demonstrating Google Glass struggled to make it look stylish. Most companies are focusing on the engineering challenges in front of them and paying too little attention to the “cultural engineering” that needs to happen for wearables to become accepted, says J.P. Gownder of Forrester, a research firm. Apple has hired fashion-conscious executives from luxury brands like Burberry and Yves Saint Laurent to make its watch attractive, but it is not yet obvious that it has cracked the cool code.

The most common pitch for buying a smartwatch is also an unsatisfying one. Having sold consumers smartphones, companies are now saying that glancing at notifications on your wrist is a more efficient use of time and more polite than using a phone. David Singleton, engineering director at Google, which has made its Android operating system available on watches, says smartwatches allow wearers “to be more present with people around you”. The reality, however, is that glancing at your watch and checking your phone are both ways to alienate friends and colleagues.

But the biggest challenge facing wearables is the absence to date of a “killer app”. Watches do not yet provide much more than smartphones currently do, and some models offer far less. Moving beyond phones’ capabilities will take time, says Tim Bajarin of Creative Strategies, a consulting firm. It will also depend on getting developers to build apps that will make the most of wearables’ possibilities. Currently, most developers are preoccupied by smartphones, which have hundreds of millions of users versus a few million for smartwatches, says Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz, a venture-capital firm.

Many developers will also wait and see which operating system becomes dominant before investing time, effort and money in wearables. Apple and Google are going head-to-head to develop the system that will unite different areas of people’s lives, from their watches and phones to their cars and home appliances.

Some analysts think wearables’ killer feature may eventually be that they will provide their users with a “persistent” digital identity, melding the functions of a driving licence, credit card, house key, car key and computer in one small gadget worn on the wrist or neck. To see what that future might look like, travel to the Disney World theme park in Orlando. Disney invested around $1 billion to build a system in which people use a wristband (called a MagicBand) to get on rides, pay for food and enter their hotel rooms. The technology is convenient for guests, who have to carry around fewer cards, but probably costs them more in the end, because it is so easy to buy something without thinking of the bill. The bands let Disney collect data in real time about the traffic their rides and restaurants are getting, so as to deploy staff to the right places. Other firms are taking tentative steps in a similar direction. Carmakers such as Hyundai are creating apps to let people unlock and start their cars remotely with their watches and phones.

Consumer applications such as these are not the only route to success for wearables. It is true that for the past decade, consumers have driven many technology trends, from the streaming of films and music to “sharing economy” businesses like Airbnb and Lyft. But the next stage in wearables’ development may be led by business users. It is still early days. “Everything I am seeing is trials,” says Arnie Lund, a senior engineer at General Electric. Yet wearable devices would be useful in the workplace in all sorts of ways.

In factories and warehouses, smart glasses could make it more efficient to locate and handle stock—and to keep an eye on workers’ productivity. Mining and oil firms could use wearables to monitor the safety of employees in hazardous situations. First V1sion, a Spanish startup, is working on a sports shirt with an embedded camera, to give fans a players’ eye view of the action. Virgin Atlantic, Japan Airlines and other carriers have tried using smart glasses and watches to improve their check-in service. Consumers may benefit in the end, but the buyers of the wearable devices will be businesses.

For companies the cost of kitting out their staff with smartwear is less of a problem than building the computer systems needed to support such devices and process their data. This can cost $500,000 or more for each application, says Dave Miller of Covisint, a technology firm.

Wearable devices hold the potential to transform some industries. Clinical trials could become cheaper and more accurate if drugmakers give wearable monitors to the patients taking part. Hospitals and doctors’ surgeries could use such monitors to reduce the need for home visits. Insurance firms could enter a new age in which they reduce risk as well as provide cover for it. One American health insurer is already handing out health-monitoring bands to customers, promising lower premiums for those who exercise more (see article). Banks could reward customers who use the identity-verifying features of wearables, to cut the risk of card fraud.

The opportunities are boundless, but so are the dilemmas. Wearable devices are highly personal, but that exposes people to real risks. As consumers quantify more of their lives and store more of their health and medical data electronically, the chance that they could be compromised rises. Currently there is no straightforward way to revoke personal information should a wearable device be lost or stolen. Mark O’Neill of Axway, a French software-security company, says wearables provide “a new avenue of attack” for cyber-criminals.

Such fears will need to be assuaged for consumers to become as enthusiastic about wearables as the many companies now working on them. But the explosive success of the smartphone demonstrates the miracles that can happen when software developers turn their minds to exploiting the full potential of a device loaded with sensors and computing power. It is still unclear what wearables’ killer app will be. But Apple’s faithful will keep praying that one day it will be revealed.