WIMM’s device is akin to a chunky iPod nano; the 12.3 millimeters thickness gives it more girth than most smartphones of today. But that’s likely because it has smartphone-like components inside: a 667 MHz processor, accelerometer and magnetometer for tracking, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and up to 32 GB of storage capacity. Information is shown on a low-resolution, 1.4-inch capacitive touchscreen. The company claims support for Android, iOS and BlackBerry handsets, but software for the device is built on Android. Instead of direct sales, WIMM will license its technology.

The idea behind small wearable screens is intriguing and one I’ve experimented with for several months. I purchased a Sony Ericsson Live View, but promptly placed it in a drawer after just a few days. The small device was buggy and lost its Bluetooth connection with my Android phone dozens of times during the course of a day. Next I turned to the Metawatch prototype and found much more success. Thanks to a super Bluetooth radio and software, it solved the connectivity issues; I’ve walked 80 feet away from my phone while wearing the Metawatch before the connection drops. And that’s key because both of these devices, and the apps on them, get their data through a smartphone.

The addition of Wi-Fi in a small wearable display could help remove that limitation, however. Certain functions of WIMM’s display generally must leverage a smartphone: Caller ID and text messaging alerts, for example. But developers could potentially build small Android applications that pull data directly from the web over Wi-Fi networks, making the device less reliant upon a handset to act both as brains and connection. Support for multiple connections could challenge battery life, however.

While I wouldn’t browse the web on a 1.4-inch capacitive touchscreen, there might be a market for standalone, bite-sized apps waiting to be discovered by developers. Of course, such software would have to be more compelling than similar apps that already run on smartphones, or else consumers would simply stick with the phone in their pocket. I could envision a WIMM wearable device acting as a Wi-Fi remote controlling a smart television, for example. One of the discussions at next month’s Mobilize event will focus solely on these connected device opportunities with executives from Fossil, PARC and Vitality sharing their thoughts.

There are still hurdles for the WIMM device and others in this space. Input becomes challenging as displays get smaller; output is hampered by tiny screens; the more “smarts” you put inside, the thicker a device can be. But, WIMM’s development module and concept images show that you can fit more, powerful components into a wearable form-factor. And as those components shrink and gain more functionality over time, the specifications of today’s smartphones could be on tomorrow’s wrists.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Bluetooth to Feel Blue as Personal Area Network Battles Loom
• Today’s Smartphones Give Rise to Tomorrow’s Robots
• Survey: How apps can solve photo management

While I like the idea of notifications in a wristwatch, the user interface and interaction can be a challenge. The inPulse uses a single button system, which is fairly limiting. Sony Ericsson’s LiveView appears to offer more flexibility by adding a touch-sensitive bezel to a pair of hardware buttons. And although Apple’s latest iPod Nano isn’t marketed as a watch, it does tell time and there are a number of watch-bands that accept the Nano with its full touchscreen. The TikTok and LunaTik bands may be the most prominently known choices due to raising more than $941,000 in funding through individual donations via Kickstarter. Even so, controlling any of these “smart watches” are still constrained by the small screen, causing me to wonder if voice controls are in the future for such timepieces.

What makes these devices appealing, however, is the potential for new mobile development platforms and applications. Apple, for example, could expand its current programming tools to support apps on the Nano. The LiveView watch works specifically with Android phones, so developers can leverage Google’s SDK and add Live View compatibility into mobile apps. And the inPulse team provides API documentation for programmers, or even talented hobbyists, to create their own apps using Java. The inPulse watch itself can be modified using C programming and would-be hackers can create or test code by using a freely available inPulse watch simulator. This opens up a world of possibilities. For example, the Nano stores and plays local music, but both the LiveView and inPulse have apps that support remote control of music playback on a paired phone.

The entire opportunity for smarter watches reminds me of the ill-fated Microsoft SPOT watches that launched in 2004. Yes, I bought one and thought that watch with connectivity — these used FM radio waves — was the wave of the future. But soon after, smartphones with always-on mobile broadband connections trumped the limited purpose watches with their MSN Direct service. However, Microsoft’s SPOT concept was a good one: quick bits of information on a small, wearable display definitely added value when I had the service and supported hardware.

Perhaps such smart watches were ahead of their time seven years ago. With the advances in display technology, mobile software platforms and cellular connectivity, it might be time for intelligent timepieces to make a comeback.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• 5 Connected Consumer Companies to Watch in 2011
• Why Browsers Don’t Matter Anymore
• Bluetooth to Feel Blue as Personal Area Network Battles Loom