The Apple Watch keeps more than time
Over the four weeks that I’ve owned and worn an Apple Watch (38mm, stainless steel, Milanese loop), I have been asked repeatedly some variant of “has it changed your entire life?” It is asked snidely by some, hopefully by others, but always based in the implication that the Watch is worth owning only if it has transformative power.
I don’t agree with this framing, so I tend to respond with excitement about the few ways that the Watch has alleviated pressure points in my life. But the more I exist with my Watch, the more I’m convinced that it will change our lives — just not yet, and not in the way we might think.
Episode IV: A New Value
To understand where the Watch is headed, it helps to understand where value lies. A thousand years ago, the value of physical objects arose mostly from materials, labor, and utility — with most value coming from the first two. (A suit of armor was useful, but it didn’t matter because most people couldn’t afford it.)
This changed with improvements in production capabilities. Books, for example: as printing presses were invented and automated paper production rose, books became cheaper and easier to produce. As material and labor costs plummeted, books were left with little value as physical objects. Their value shifted to their utility: how beneficial the information was, or how enjoyable the story.
As mechanized production took off and reproduction became the norm in the 20th century, we saw a new kind of value emerge: individualization. As products became abundant, the binary question of whether I owned a thing was replaced with what kind did I own? The rapid partitioning of product categories allowed consumers to find a good fit for their needs and life.
This all changed when digital products entered the picture. For the first time in history, we had products whose value was determined not by discrete inputs, but by their intersection.
Our Home Screens, Ourselves
The utility of physical objects is basically consistent within a category: all lamps provide light; clocks mostly keep the same time. (Mostly.) In a digital world, however, utility changes wildly. While my iPhone 6 looks identical to yours when turned off, the minute they wake up we see how different they are. The apps I’ve installed, the social media accounts — how I individualize the product changes how it operates. The smartphone’s greatest value is that it sits at the intersection of utility and individualization in a way that a fixed, physical object never could.
The physical value of our devices has been overwhelmed (even with their artistry) by the value of the individualized lives they allow us to lead. The true value of the iPhone isn’t even the iPhone itself. We pay good money because that’s the cost of a ticket to this incredible party that Apple is throwing — a tailored, connected, and cohesive experience.
This reveals two things:
- Apple’s core value is in software, not hardware. Steve Jobs said as much at D5; look around 21:30 in this video.
- The hardware serves as a doorway to networked existence; our devices are functionally interchangeable.
Apple sees this. Consider Handoff, Messages, and iCloud Drive — they’ve laid groundwork for an experience where individual device form is unimportant. With CarPlay and HomeKit, Apple has even suggested it’s unimportant who makes the actual device.
It’s Screens, All the Way Down
The more screens that run an Apple platform, the better Apple can coordinate your experience. As they build out their platform to new categories, and as costs for producing microcomputers and screens drop, we’ll see smart devices grow exponentially. TVs and tablets, sure, but also appliances, cars, light fixtures — and ourselves.
Conventional wisdom says the smartphone will remain the hub of this digital life, but I’m not sure. The smartphone is vital because it balances computing power and ubiquity. But the need to keep that computing power near us will decrease dramatically as computing devices around us increase. If you have eight screens in your house, one in your car, and several at work, all talking to each other, what need have you to carry a mobile device?
In this world of ubiquitous screens, our expectations of mobile devices will change. With a powerful device always within reach, we no longer need computing power from a mobile device. We need identification.
Bytes of a Feather
As smart devices grow, we’re seeing automation tools blossom alongside. We teach rules to our devices — “if it’s cold outside, turn on the heater” — and they follow them automatically.
Some rules connect to dates or tasks, but I think the majority begin with our location. The TV should display my shows when I’m in front of it, the car should adjust settings when I’m in it, the bathroom mirror should display my schedule when I stand in front of it. Location-driven rules require some chip on our body that alerts devices what our personal preferences are.
The true value of the Watch will never reside in pure computing power, and a small screen on your wrist will probably never be best for most tasks. The value will reside in its ability to be on our person at all times, broadcasting to any device we choose that we are present.
More than easing access to information, that identification will change the physical world around us — lighting, furniture arrangement, seat position, maybe even which clothes are presented to us as we walk into a boutique. The mix of personal preference and location stored on a device like the Watch will change how we live in a way no digital device has been able to prior.
This new value — identification — doesn’t require a screen, of course, and could be embedded into a hundred other items. A lapel pin, belt, ring, earring... whatever their form, these wearables will connect to our constellation of networked devices, and it won’t matter which accessory we wear day to day.
Apple doesn’t have to manufacture every item. It’s conceivable that Apple will license their platform to respected lifestyle brands. Imagine a Tiffany ring with Apple chips, or a Burberry tie, or a Nike sneaker.
Fear and Loathing
I don’t know if embedding chips throughout our houses and lives is a good idea. (People decried the ballpoint pen, saying handwriting would be destroyed by this blunt tool.) We need to think hard about privacy implications and how we make space for quiet time in increasingly connected lives. But those questions will help guide development, not quell expansion.
It might not be bad to have such a connected life. Humanity has always sought tools to better our lives. Each of us does things we don’t like that could probably be handled by networked digital tools without any loss of character.
But whether or not you welcome our sapphire crystal–coated overlords, I think it behooves us to look farther down the road than the next Apple Watch generation. We might start to understand the new lifestyle it represents, and shape digital tools so they make us more human, not less.