And to achieve that, the company is opening it up. Developers could obviously already write apps for the SmartWatch using Sony’s SDK, but now they can write their own alternative firmware and flash it to the device. It’s called the Open SmartWatch Project and, according to Sony, it will make it possible to “create new experimental use cases and innovations” around the SmartWatch hardware.

It should go without saying that those flashing their watches do so at their own risk and may find their warranty voided. There is a Sony hacker guide for the project, full of reference information.

Sony is kicking off the project with a SmartWatch Arduino hackathon this coming Saturday in Malmö, Sweden — the idea there is have Arduino firmware run on the SmartWatch.

The creation of the Open SmartWatch Project suggests Sony may have found its own user experience efforts lacking, but overall it’s a good thing. It gives developers a relatively affordable (currently around $95) and attractive piece of hardware to play around with and create new smart watch ideas on, and it should feed ideas back to Sony in case the company decides to take a third crack at the concept.

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

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Flash analysis: smart watches
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro

Let’s leave aside things like weight, fit and girth – it’s very clearly a beta product and all these things will improve (they’re not too bad to start with, anyway). But there are fundamental problems with the concept, and they are “why” problems that particularly stand out when you compare the Glass concept with that of the smart watch.

Efficiency, please

First off, let me reiterate and flesh out a pet gripe of mine that’s highly relevant to the way I view this comparison: I think there’s way too much duplication of functionality between smartphones and tablets. I get why that is – they use the same operating systems in order to simplify developer efforts – but the result is often inefficient. Twitter, Facebook, email… there’s not much of a compelling reason to pick one mobile form factor over the other.

If you’re going to have two communications devices, then, why not split their duties according to suitability? One option I’m considering is to get a cheap Nokia Asha phone for voice calls, SMS and WhatsApp, and to then pair it with my iPad Mini for more graphically intensive tasks: this would maximize phone battery life while giving me more screen real estate for the apps that require it.

But what if I could push those more basic tasks across to another device that makes more out of them? What if I had the combination of a tablet and something easier to access than a phone… something wearable.

Use cases

Yes, I realize the battery-life-maximization element goes out the window here – and that may be a major medium-term problem for both Glass and the smart watch concept – but let’s take that out of the equation for now. For me, one of the biggest selling points of Google Glass is its ability to make it easier to see essential, bite-sized information: text messages, tweets, incoming caller identity and so on. This kind of functionality has been on smart watches for some time, though none have appealed to me until now (that might be a design thing).

Then we have geolocation, which is probably the most important addition to the mobile canon since cellular connectivity itself. True, it is slightly easier to watch a map through a heads-up display than by glancing at a wrist-borne device, so Glass has the edge here. But that kind of use case tends to imply a device that is constantly on, making the limitations of current battery technology a major barrier for both device types.

What’s more, the real promise of Glass for navigational purposes would lie in augmented reality – overlays, in other words. And that was perhaps my most surprising realization on trying Glass for the first time: the minute size of its screen makes it useless for the most interesting augmented reality ideas. For this form factor to really fly, it would need to utilize larger transparent screens as “lenses”, so that it could properly mediate your visual world. Again, the power usage implications are significant.

Where Glass really does have the smart watch form factor beat is on voice – not voice commands (I’ll get back to that in a moment) but voice communications, phone-style. Glass’s audio capabilities are based on bone conduction, so only the user can really hear what’s going on. Conversations generally need to be private, both for the protection of those talking and to avoid annoying nearby people, so a voice-enabled smart watch would have to be paired with something like a Bluetooth headset – hardly ideal.

But what about photos?

Then we have Glass’s voice-operated camera, the factor that Eliza found compelling and something that just flat-out wouldn’t work on a watch. For me, this feature is simply not much of a draw. For a start, I usually carry a good compact system camera with me. But I also don’t like the idea of verbally telling my glasses to take a photo – it’s only slightly faster than whipping out a phone, and it also means looking like I’m talking to no-one in particular.

And that is perhaps the biggest problem with Glass: even once its designers get past the visual tool factor, its use will still appear contextually odd. There will always be people who are fine with that, in the same way that Bluetooth headsets continue to be a thing, but it’s a hugely limiting factor when it comes to mass appeal. It may make sense when you’re driving, but most people don’t want to look like they’re talking to themselves as they walk down the street.

I realize that all of this comes down to the user. Some people want to take photos more easily; I don’t really care much about that. I want simple information, presented to me in a way that’s an improvement over my current smartphone setup; others might find this functionality unappealing. Each to their own — there is clearly not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution in the wearables space, not in the same way that smartphones have achieved near-universal appeal. (Incidentally, if Google Glass were a fully hands-free experience, which it isn’t, it would be very useful for certain specialists, such as surgeons and mechanics.)

There are some things that Glass, or something like it, could potentially be able to do much better than any alternative device. For me, augmented reality is at the top of that list, but Glass can’t really deliver without a monumental revamp. And that pretty much sums Glass up for me: intriguing, but I can’t see it doing what I’d want it to do anytime soon. A new generation of smart watches is a much likelier prospect in the short term and, after today’s Glass experience, that promise suddenly seems much more exciting.

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

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Flash analysis: smart watches
• Call it Real-Time, Squared, or NewNet, The Web Is Changing

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

• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• Takeaways from mobile’s second quarter
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro

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

• Mobile 2012 and beyond
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution

I have been tempted by alternatives like Motorola’s MotoActv or the Pebble, I continued to wear my iPod nano as a watch for a little over a year in all before the novelty of wearing an iPod as a watch stopped outweighing its shortcomings as an actual watch.  The experience has made me a much more astute when it comes to evaluating the next smart watch I will buy. In fact, I now believe that it is not a smart watch that I am looking for at all, and a dumb watch may be more appropriate. Below is a list of the limitations of Apple’s past iPod-powered “smart watch” solution and suggestions for what would make it better.

Battery required regular charging

Having a 30-pin charging cable just about everywhere I go, one would think I would be accustomed to charging my gear on a regular basis. In fact, I routinely have been charging my iPhone almost twice a day given how much use I get out of it. Watches on the other hand are not something I have been accustomed to charging. On more than one occasion, I would end up forgetting my Nano watch and leave it behind charging somewhere.  It would be left charging at my desk, on an end table, in the car or next to my bed.  I never did quite get the optimum charging cycle down, and eventually ended up charging it every night.

Solution: Use less battery power, embed a longer life battery and possibly charge the device without cables.

Content required daily syncing

When my iPod moved to my wrist, I started syncing my iPod to my iTunes library less and less since it was now my watch.  One of the features I initially enjoyed with the iPod Photo when it first came out in 2004 was the ability to store and show other people photos. I continued to carry around my photos on an iPod for quite some time thereafter, but stopped with the Nano watch in part because it was awkward to twist my arm around in order to show someone my photos.  But that was not the biggest challenge I faced.  In addition to photos, the same was true for all sorts of content that I would access each and every day on my iPod. Music, podcasts, audiobooks, contacts, calendars and even notes.  Being able to sync all of my content wirelessly to my iPhone rendered content syncing content to my iPod obsolete.  Eventually I stopped syncing to my Nano watch all together, and only used it as a watch.

Solution: Wirelessly deliver information to the device like the Apple TV (which is basically just a conduit of information, sitting on your network between your Apple devices and your HDTV)

Earphone cord kept tugging my ears

It seemed like my arms were just a bit too long for most of the headphones I liked wearing. The cord would be whipping itself all over the place, hitting me in the face or getting caught on something as I walked by.  Carrying your music library around on your wrist ends up not being such a good idea.  Because of the the case I was using, detaching the iPod from the watch band required tools to unscrew the casing.  I liked the way the Nano looked as a watch, it was one of the more attractive solutions available, so switching cases was not an option for me.  I just ended up putting the watch in my pocket when I wanted to listen to music.

Solution: Use wireless headphones, or design a stylish and easily detachable band.

Pedometer would skip a step

Some pedometers are designed to be in the soles of your shoes, others are meant to be attached to your hip, and only recently have a few pedometers like the Jawbone Up or the Fitbit Flex have the sophistication of being worn on your wrist.  Having a classic hip pedometer like the one in the iPod nano on your wrist produces inaccurate results that rendered the fitness functionality of the device unusable.  No matter how many times I tried to calibrate the pedometer, it just would not keep up with my steps accurately.  Even placing the watch in my pocket would not completely resolve the issue, so I ended up using a separate pedometer.

Solution: Implement smarter accelerometer technology that can adapt to where the device is being worn.

It just could not tell the time

Don’t get me wrong, the iPod nano knew what time it was. It even had a lot of pretty faces that would display the time. It just did not do a very good job of telling time when I needed to know.  If it happened to have been left unattended for a while, I would see the Apple logo instead of the clock face as it went through its boot up sequence.  Having a design that would leave the screen on all the time would just run the battery down even faster. And entering a darkened room with a flashlight on your writs would not be acceptable. Having to turn on your watch to tell the time sort of defeats the purpose of placing it on your wrist in the first place.  I, like most people, am used to having a watch where you can quickly tell the time by just glancing at it.

Solution: Display the time, all of the time, without emitting a bright light.

So why do I occasionally still wear my iPod nano as a wristwatch? It never ceases to attract attention and pique others’ curiosity. I have had more comments and questions about this watch than any other watch I have ever worn.  And in doing that, what I’ve come to understand is that almost everyone I talk to about it thinks it’s a great idea to have a smart watch. But when you think about how to overcome all of its shortcomings, you start to realize that it does not need to be that smart at all.  Rather than being the place where decisions are made and information is processed — like a smartphone — it needs to focus on fewer tasks and do those things well: like display simple information that can be read with a glance, or capture some basic data points like health statistics. 

Apple is said to be working on a smart watch, but there are few details about what such a device would entail. And as an ex-Apple designer has speculated, based on patents it already holds, the company could tackle many of the aforementioned issues I found with the Nano watch by changing charging technology, using curved glass, and possibly using Siri as an interface.

While I might not be ready to talk to my watch just yet, what I have learned is that there are some things one should definitely avoid:  like streaming media and content on to the device over the air only to stream back off of the device to your wireless headphones does not seem very practical.  Having a high-resolution screen that is often too bright and will just run the battery down even faster is likely the wrong way to go no matter how flexible the glass is.  Just like Apple discovered that all of their customers have ears when they re-engineered their earpods, it will be interesting do see what Apple comes up with they discover that we all have wrists as well.  In my opinion the more like a smartphone your watch gets, the less functional it ultimately becomes.

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

• Mobile first-quarter 2013: analysis and outlook
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft

But this is likely just what the earliest iteration of such a device could do. Apple may start small, but it tends to think pretty big: after all, it launched the iPhone without third-party apps while internally debating whether or not Apple should offer developers access to the phone — and that worked out pretty well. It’s not a stretch to assume Apple would want to offer access to its most important basic services — from FaceTime and iMessage to Notes, Reminders and notifications — to any wearable device, like it has to the iPhone, iPad and Mac.

And it’s at this point that iWatch could really stretch what Apple is capable of delivering as far as internet services. Few doubt that Apple will make a really beautiful piece of hardware. But a future version of an iWatch could, like MobileMe did in 2008 and like Apple Maps did last fall, further reinforce the notion that Apple is still very weak when it comes to implementing web-based services.

However, the promise of an iWatch connected to the cloud could finally push Apple to get its web-based act together.

The promise of Siri

The dream of an iWatch is to (eventually) do many of the things we rely on our mobile devices for, but on a small computer resting on our wrists: browse the web, get mapping directions, send text messages, and in the case of the iPhone, use alternate interaction and communication methods, like a video call on FaceTime or voice-controlled Siri to get tasks done.

Siri, in particular, seems especially ideal for a device that will likely have pretty small display and no hardware buttons. Initially this may be unnecessary if you’re simply using the watch for checking your heart rate or tapping to answer a call. But when an iWatch becomes more capable, voice control might be the quickest way to add something to your calendar or even send a text message. Siri’s going to have to get a lot better for that to be a selling point for an iWatch someday, of course.

In my personal experience, Siri is one of those “nice to have” features but it doesn’t play into my use of my iPhone or iPad on any kind of regular basis. This is mostly because it’s just slow. I love the idea of dictating a text message when I’m driving; the reality is that by the time Siri understands what I actually want it to do, sometimes it takes much longer than it should. This is somewhat understandable because the service is still technically in beta. (But that brings up a whole other point of why a service Apple has been actively advertising as a key iOS feature is still in beta nearly 17 months later.)

iWatch and the cloud

And then there’s the general reliability of Apple’s cloud-based services. iCloud, which is Apple’s solution for keeping users’ content accessible from different Apple devices, is no stranger to outages; there was a half-day episode just last week that took down iCloud backup, Photo Stream and Documents in the cloud for some users.

But its other internet-based services that also operate in the cloud (i.e. not iCloud) aren’t always reliable either. Siri, iMessage, FaceTime, Maps and GameCenter are all services that have gone offline at one point or another or experienced major usage issues. An iWatch could add millions of more access points for these services at the same time that Apple will presumably be growing its user base through the sale of iPhones, iPads and other devices too.

Even if the iWatch does arrive before Christmas 2013, as some outlets have reported, it doesn’t appear like there will be many of Apple’s cloud-based services included right away. So Apple has some time to get there.

But an iWatch — if and when it arrives, and if and when it is integrated with Apple’s cloud services — could either help Apple’s internet services teams shine or further tarnish their reputation. Google Glass may be dorky, but no one worries about whether or not Google will be able to deliver useful and compelling web services to its wearable computer.

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

• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro

After reporting last month that a team of 100 people were working on a smart watch at Apple, Bloomberg is back with a few more details about the device’s capabilities. It says Apple is considering adding caller ID to the iWatch (or whatever the device is called), a pedometer and heart rate monitor, and the ability to make calls and check points on a map.

The Verge also reports a few more details about the current state of the project:

• That battery life is a big concern: Apple wants the battery to last four to five days on a single charge, but the current prototypes are only lasting “a couple of days.”
• The operating system would likely be the full version of iOS scaled down to fit on a watch-size display.
• But iOS isn’t properly equipped for that just yet, and needs more work to make it adaptable to an iWatch.

Buzz surrounding an Apple-made smart watch spiked early last month when several publications reported simultaneously that the company was working on such a device. A former Apple interface designer also laid out a case for why Apple is prepared to develop a device now, and speculated on what such a device could do.

This enthusiasm surrounding a new product category is welcomed by Apple investors, who are becoming impatient for Apple to enter a brand new product category three years after it introduced the first iPad.

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

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Carrier IQ and the continued erosion of operator trust
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro

Following reports earlier this week that Apple is working on a smart watch that runs iOS, Bloomberg reports it has heard a few more details about the project. Apple has 100 people working on the device, according to sources who are not named. Those people include marketing, software and hardware people within the company.

Specifically, Bloomberg names James Foster, who is senior director of engineering, and Achim Pantfoerder, a program manager, as two people who are working on making a wearable device.

Bloomberg’s report tracks with what the New York Times and Wall Street Journal wrote earlier this week. Those stories referenced a “watch-like” device made of curved glass that would run iOS. But Bloomberg’s story reporting the size of the team indicates the project may be further along than simple “experimentations” as previously reported.

Apple’s stock has dropped in the last few months as shareholders have become worried that demand for the iPhone and and iPad may be slowing. But speculation is building that Apple is working on a wearable device, something that could be a companion or standalone device to interact with other Apple mobile products. Wearable computing is expected to be a $1.5 billion market by next year.

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

• Mobile first-quarter 2013: analysis and outlook
• Flash analysis: smart watches
• Analyzing the wearable computing market

The watch would run the same iOS platform as the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad, according to the Times‘ report. The Journal adds that Apple has talked with its chief manufacturing partner, Foxconn, about manufacturing the device.

Last week, one of the original human interface designers at Apple, Bruce Tognazzini, wrote a detailed post on his personal blog about what he imagined Apple could do with an “iWatch.” He no longer works at Apple, and said he had no knowledge of what Apple’s designers may actually be working on now. Among other things, he pointed out that Apple has been testing and has patented a method of producing curved glass displays.

These latest reports aren’t the first that such a watch or device is under consideration inside Apple’s Cupertino, Calif. headquarters. It’s important to note that Apple testing or experimenting with a device is a long ways from it being an actual product. But as wearable computing becomes more mainstream — it’s expected by a $1.5 billion business by next year — it makes sense that a wearable, iOS-based device is something Apple would want to at least explore, especially as the market for iPhones continues to mature.

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

• Mobile first-quarter 2013: analysis and outlook
• Flash analysis: smart watches
• Analyzing the wearable computing market

“The iWatch will fill a gaping hole in the Apple ecosystem,” he wrote on his Ask Tog blog. “It will facilitate and coordinate not only the activities of all the other computers and devices we use, but a wide array of devices to come. Like other breakthrough Apple products, its value will be underestimated at launch, then grow to have a profound impact on our lives and Apple’s fortunes.”

There are already smart watches out there for early adopters. But Apple always goes for the mainstream. The case Tognazzini makes is that for all the apparent drawbacks to getting regular people to wear and use a smart watch, Apple already holds the answers. For example:

• No one wants to recharge a watch: Apple has a patent on a wireless recharging method.
• Clunkiness can be solved with another patented method Apple has for curved glass displays.
• And thanks to Siri, there’s no need for excess buttons to scroll through menus on a small screen.

He also has some very interesting ideas regarding how Apple could use its own iWatch: as a way to remove the need for passwords when using other Apple devices, like a Mac or an iPhone; to make mobile payments possible with an NFC chip-equipped iWatch; to improve its maps with altitude and pressure information sensed on the watch; and as a method of crowdsourcing more accurate weather information.

That’s just a taste; there’s much more and you should read his whole post. As Tognazzini points out, he doesn’t have any insider information and has no idea when Apple could be ready with such a device. But his perspective is smart and while many others are waiting with bated breath for a new television to show Apple’s still got some innovation up its sleeve, Tognazzini’s thought very far ahead of how Apple could make the smartwatch one of its most revolutionary devices yet.

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

• Mobile first-quarter 2013: analysis and outlook
• Flash analysis: smart watches
• Analyzing the wearable computing market