This week the NYT had a “Room for Debate” feature on wearable computing. The title was provocative, “Is Wearable Tech Destined to Fail?”, and asked, among other questions, “Will consumers ever embrace wearable technology, or are the devices too intrusive?:
Four respondents provided short comments that were surprisingly non-responsive, very short sighted, and quite revealing. Many public comments followed.
Bridget Carey comments that what is needed is to “Make the Data From Wearable Devices More Relevant.”
“To make wearable tech truly compelling, we don’t need more data. We need smarter interpretation of data”
Sure, but she appears to equate “wearable” with “fitness app”, which reflects the current state of the technology, which is far too limited.
Ben Bajarin is on the right track when he says we need to “Embed Technology in Our Lives”. Wearables “need to disappear and become embedded into the apparel we already wear”.
Good point.
But he, too, takes fitness apps as the goal. He makes the curious remark,
“For wearables to truly add value they need to help us create and sustain new and better habits.”
Huh? Since when did the goal of any kind of computing become behavior modification? Wow!
Pierre Theodore takes a different angle, noting “The Promise of Smart Glasses in Health Care”. Of course, heads up displays have been explored for decades in medicine, and commercial products require “considerable evolution required to withstand the demands of hospital use.”
Again, wearable is apparently equated with “health related”, plus he limits consideration to the least novel wearable, heads up visual displays. Other wearable sensors are far, far more interesting medically, I would say, for long term, in situ, tracking of physiology, for example.
Finally, Eva Chen comments sensibly on “Tech and Fashion That Complement Each Other”. She recounts that her “inbox lately looks more and more like a C.E.S. ticker” filled with product announcements and glossy corporate promotions.
But, as I have complained, we don’t have anything compelling yet. Whatever “it” turns out to be, ““it will have to balance elegant form with functionality that you just can’t live without.” And, she says, “I’m waiting.”
Me to.
It is very interesting that none of the respondents directly considered the headline question, nor did they address the specific question about intrusiveness.
But the public comments sure did! Lot’s of them complained about intimate tracking, and many mentioned the inevitability of hackers gaining access to your wearable devices and data from them. Eeww!
Overall, this was a pretty unsatisfactory discussion. But, as me and Eva Chen have said, we’re still waiting for a wearable app worth wearing.
Robert McGrath's Blog 