The Apple Watch reviews are already in, and the verdict is pretty consistent: Apple’s long-awaited smartwatch looks great, but it’s slow, the interface is a little confusing, and too many of the apps are half-baked.
The decidedly mixed reviews are unusual for Apple, even for an entirely new product. I know there were people who panned the iPod and the iPhone when they were first released, but they were clearly idiots. This time, I’m not so sure.
In fact, the rather obvious and oft-mentioned negatives suggest that if another company had produced this smartwatch—impossible, since it doesn’t work unless you have an iPhone 5 or 6—the reviews would have been even more negative. Even the technorati seem unimpressed.
The muted enthusiasm—in some cases outright advice not to buy the current version—raises a central question: Did the company launch the Apple Watch, which will be available for pre-order Friday ahead of deliveries starting April 24, too soon? (Update: Almost all the Apple Watch models were sold out within 30 minutes on Friday morning preordering, though as one story rightly puts it, "it is not clear whether this is due to relatively high demand or low production." There were many reports in recent weeks about limited supplies, either because of manufacturing issues or because Apple was purposely limiting production.)
Apple is sometimes criticized for being late to the party on some products, only to prove after it quickly kills most of the competition that its timing was actually perfect. A few people point out that the Apple Watch is also too late because other smartwatches and wearables from Samsung, Motorola, Fitbit and many others are already out. But a number of signs point to the opposite and very un-Applelike problem: It’s too early.
Here's why:
* Too many people still don’t know why they need one. Even many Apple fans—even those who have been trying them out—aren’t sure why it's a must-have. That’s no doubt partly thanks to its $349-and-way-up price compared with cheaper competition. The first iPods and iPhones had shortcomings, but uncertainty about their main purpose was never one of those. The iPod played all your music, and the iPhone was the Internet in your pocket.
Strangely enough, even Apple doesn’t seem quite sure what the Apple Watch is for. I was struck by a line in the recent Wired inside story of how the watch was developed: "Apple decided to make a watch and only then set out to discover what it might be good for.” Yikes. Really?
CEO Tim Cook and VP of Technology Kevin Lynch provided a number of answers, mainly centered around the notion that the Apple Watch provides new ways for people to connect in a more lightweight way than having to pull out their phones and interrupt what else they’re doing. And to pay for stuff with Apple Pay. But a lot of folks weren’t convinced, not least because you still need to carry an iPhone for the current Apple Watch to function beyond, well, telling time.
* It’s slow. No, not the timekeeping, which as Cook emphasized is exceedingly accurate, but the operation of the watch itself. Actually, and most distressingly, even the watch is slow in the sense that there’s a noticeable lag in the screen lighting up when you raise your wrist. That’s a considerable annoyance to a number of reviewers, even Apple fanboys like John Gruber.
Apple promises reviewers that much of this will change with coming software updates, and it generally doesn’t promise what it can’t deliver. But right now it’s annoying to many people, even diehard Apple fans and certainly anyone who currently wears a watch.
* The interface requires a learning curve. Perhaps this is inevitable for a device with an entirely new form factor. But this sort of thing is what Apple has always been so good at: creating new devices that don’t require a learning curve. If reviewers are right, it’s another sign that Apple rushed things a bit, before it had the interface nailed. Even a smartwatch--especially a smartwatch--needs to be dead simple to use, even at the risk of fewer functions.
* The apps are glitchy. And slow. Farhad Manjoo at the New York Times said the Uber app failed to load, the Twitter app was confusing, and the Starwood hotels app deleted itself.
* It might run out of power before the day’s over. Some reviewers found no problem with the watch’s battery life, but others said it pooped out before their day was done. People have gotten sort of used to this happening with their much more powerful smartphones, though they don’t like it. But this is a watch, which even people who don’t wear a watch would naturally expect to run at least a day, even a long day.
Even all that doesn’t mean the Apple Watch will be a failure. Indeed, if all the device does is help lock in current iPhone users, and maybe even persuade Android owners to switch, the Apple Watch will be a big success for Apple overall.
What’s more, Apple fans may snap it up anyway. It looks great on your wrist, at least if you're a guy. And there’s little doubt that more and better apps will come quickly to provide more compelling reasons to buy it—assuming that enough of them sell to interest app developers.
But even that is in doubt. BMO Capital Markets slashed its forecast for Apple Watch sales today from an expected 55.5 million units from the June 2015 quarter to the September 2016 quarter to 39 million units. Its survey of 735 U.S. consumers found that only 9% of iPhone owners intend to buy an Apple Watch.
Fact is, the Apple Watch isn’t yet a must-have product. With a little more time in development, it might have been.
