Playing Devil's Advocate as Jony Ive and Marc Newson Guide Apple

The big winner from Ian Parker's Jony Ive profile in The New Yorker was Marc Newson. News that Apple hired the industrial designer was unceremoniously announced this past September in a Vanity Fair article. At the time, his position was described as a role where Newson would contribute his advice to Apple from time to time. In reality, Marc Newson may be one of Apple's more significant hires in recent years.  In an interview with Charlie Rose back in 2013, Jony explained his relationship with Newson, saying, "We share the same view of the world, and the same taste, and we relate to the same attributes or aspects of an object." Newson then added, "Most importantly we really hate the same things."  With Jony and Newson arguably the creative duo guiding Apple forward and sharing much in common with each other, what are the drawbacks and risks in such a dynamic? It is time to play devil's advocate. 

Jony and Newson's Vision Becomes Apple's Vision

One risk in having Jony and Newson control Apple's creative direction is that their view of the world becomes Apple's view. The New Yorker's Jony Ive article positioned Newson as Jony's sidekick on the Apple Watch project, with the final product sharing much in common with Newson's prior watch designs. Their attitude and feelings toward what a device worn on the wrist should look like arguably guides everything about Apple Watch all the way down to how a user interacts with notifications and glances. Is having two minds that think similarly about products as strong as having two minds that share the same philosophy but use different paths to get to the same end point? 

Lack of Criticism

One secret to Apple's success has been the ability for the industrial design team to discuss and debate ideas in the very early stages of product development. Would a Jony and Newson pairing disrupt this creative stage where ideas no longer get the same amount of criticism? Ian Parker hinted at some of these opposing views when describing Jony's push for Apple to become more of a luxury brand, a topic brought up when contemplating who to hire for it's retail chief. Tim Cook and the rest of the executive board had some concerns with Apple losing touch with the mass market, but in the end, former Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts was hired as SVP of retail and former Yves Saint Laurent Group CEO Paul Deneve was assigned to special projects. Some will look at this situation and wonder if Jony has the same intuition as Steve Jobs when it comes to being able to consider the details and big picture at the same time.  While the comparisons likely hold no relevancy as times have changed, the argument won't go away anytime soon. 

Questions Around Product Strategy 

A quick search on YouTube would reveal dozens of Newson videos where the industrial designer looks back at his decades of previous contract work designing everything from toilets and guns to airplanes and backpacks. However, Newson's passion is transport and cars, and I don't think it is a coincidence that we now have rumors of Apple showing tangible interest in something related to electric vehicles.  Marc Newson designed a concept car for Ford back in 1999, and during a recent recollection of his work, Newson described his goals with the car: "My objective was not to try to produce something that mystifies people, but to try to produce something that is simple for people to understand. You got to be able to get into this car and with one look understand how to operate it. I hate reading instruction manuals. I throw them away immediately. They just bore me." As for all of the cars in the market that are made by many different parts from many different companies, Newson said, "thats one of the reasons why cars to my liking look incredibly incoherent." Those two statements do a great job of describing the biggest criticism of a Jony/Newson duo: Is Apple now going to tackle whatever product Jony and Newson don't like looking at or using, and is that a good strategy? Would Apple's interest in a car be driven by Jony's and Newson's distaste of the current choices in the market?

Biggest Risk Factor: Incorrect Vision

If Apple wants to move into new industries and products, many decisions will depend on how Ive and Newson not only view the product, but how the product is made, and what will be its purpose and function. In such a scenario, the primary risk will be that their vision for a product doesn't resonate with the Apple customer base. This is why I suspect Apple management granted The New Yorker such far-reaching access for its Jony Ive profile. Apple is framing a discussion emphasizing design's importance in Apple product development in order to reduce the chances that a future Apple product doesn't catch on with its core users. Said another way, Apple will depend on words, and product demo videos, to sell new products to early adopters. Since Apple is a company that places very few bets, each bet is extremely large and one misfire would be very costly. 

Responses to Criticism

There are a few logical responses to criticism originating from a Jony and Newson pairing. Much of the worry or concern originates from the idea that Apple's close-knit industrial design group would no longer function as a team capable of pushing back at Jony and Newson. One can argue that was indeed one ulterior motive for having The New Yorker article published; to stress how design at Apple is actually much more than one or two people. Apple did the once unthinkable and allowed members of Jony's industrial design team talk to the press. A few years ago, Apple was nervous to let their names even leak to the press. Such a change in strategy is noteworthy and deliberate. It would seem that Apple understands what the criticism would be of a Jony/Newson pairing and is trying to address the issue: Design is built throughout the organization and is not dependent on one person.

Since Newson shares many of the same philosophies as Jony and the industrial design team, which was personally built by Jony over the years, there is a good likelihood that the current design talent in place (responsible for the Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, and now Apple Watch) will continue to function without skipping a beat. It would be more concerning if Newson held fundamentally different views on industrial design, like how a product should be made, in which case the built-in criticism from the design team may not be as effective.  

There is also little evidence to suggest that Tim Cook and the rest of the executive team will just roll over to Jony's demands and decisions. The team still includes executives that have battle wounds from countering, pushing back, and winning arguments against Steve Jobs for years. At the end of the day, Apple is being run by a group of senior executives who have shown the ability to put the product front and center. 

Jony Ive and Marc Newson both have track records that speak for themselves in terms of taking complicated things and making them simple and more functional. The key question going forward will be if they are successful in letting their intuition guide them in an environment where design collaboration and teamwork are rewarded. As long as the product remains Apple's primary focus, a Jony and Newson duo has the potential of working out well. 

Apple Wants to Design a Car as Ambition Knows No Bounds

What is an automobile? Why do automobiles look the way they do? How does one use an automobile?

Anyone who has owned or driven an automobile would have answers to these questions, formed over the span of their driving careers. Ask the same questions to someone who has never driven an automobile and the answers may be enlightening. Driving an automobile is not natural. We need to teach ourselves the art of navigating a heavy machine, composed of thousand of little parts, through the world. Is the driving learning experience focused on suppressing intuition in order to adapt to a machine that hasn't changed much in decades? Is it possible to make an automobile more intuitive that someone with no driving experience can hop in and get to where they want to go in a much more enjoyable way than what exists today? 

Apple SVP of design Jony Ive and Apple industrial designer Marc Newson with U2's Bono. Photograph courtesy (RED).

By entering the automobile industry, Apple would be rethinking what an automobile should and shouldn't be in today's society, moving past the ideas that we have been relying on for decades, which now represent barriers to making the automobile more natural and easy to use. Apple doesn't appear to be following any rules as it takes its product-focus mantra into industries ready to be disrupted by a new experience created from combining software innovation with revolutionary hardware capabilities and design. Apple wants to rethink the automobile.

What We Know

At this early stage we have a few ideas as to what Apple is currently doing with automobiles.

• Apple set up a team with senior managers in a secret location away from HQ. This is an indication that the project, codenamed "Titan" is past the "kicking the tires" phase. Instead, this would appear to be a legitimate focus for Apple with the intention of this effort leading to products. I was hesitant to jump on board the initial "Apple is doing a car" rumors because there was no evidence that Apple had a team in place with managerial structure (implying timelines and agendas). Everything changed this past Friday with reports from the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal (later confirmed by Bloomberg and Reuters). Steve Zadesky, a former Ford engineer who contributed to iPod and iPhone development, has been assigned project lead and reportedly has been given permission to create a 1,000-person team with personnel from different Apple groups. This move is very significant, indicative that this is likely much bigger than simply an advanced CarPlay product or merely battery research. 
• Apple has talked to European automobile contract manufacturers. Apple executives reportedly met with Magna Steyr, a contract manufacturer for high-end cars, suggesting Apple may be interested in continuing its successful model of focusing on design and contracting manufacturing to another company. The primary value in the automobile industry doesn't come from the capital intensive stage of assembly, as any car marker, including Tesla, will reluctantly point out. Apple's $178 billion will certainly come in handy in terms of helping partner companies reach scale quickly. By having someone else make the actual car, what at first seems like an impossible task is now that much more realistic. 
• Apple has been hiring automotive talent. Recent hires include individuals with overall automobile R&D backgrounds (Johann Jungwirth from Mercedes Benz - who was interestingly given a bogus Mac engineering title) automobile safety backgrounds (Robert Gough from Autoliv), as well as battery technology (Haran Arasaratnam from Ford). Higher-level hires indicate Apple's motivation and desire for a product that goes beyond merely software, with other hires involved in electric engines and automobile interiors. If these hires are taken at face value, then an Apple-designed car is indeed on the table. 
• The focus appears to be electric. While the four major news sources (FT, WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters) all report Apple is considering an electric vehicle, a few say Apple isn't thinking autonomous automobiles, while others say they are. At this early stage, I wouldn't include or exclude anything in terms of autonomous vehicles. We are already seeing vehicles that can park themselves and essentially drive themselves down the highway. Instead, it is safe to assume that Apple is looking at everything, including robotics, metals, and materials research.

Why Automobiles?

The idea of Apple wanting to play in the space is not surprising as automobiles are turning into moving pieces of software. Today's cars feel like "smart" phones in the pre-iPhone era: dashboards that are increasingly more confusing, ineffective communication systems that reduce driver and passenger safety, and cameras and sensors that aren't being utilized. Basically, smart cars are quite dumb. And we haven't even discussed the vehicle's outward appearance, where design is often a byproduct of a manufacturing process that rewards investment efficiency, something Apple doesn't believe in.  

The 2015 Porsche Macan interior leaves much to be desired in terms of bringing the dashboard into the mobile era. Photo courtesy (Porsche).

It is rather remarkable how the automobile dashboard has had such a difficult time transitioning from a world where software played a very minor role in automobiles to one where software found in our phones, tablets, and soon watches, is easier to use and more utilitarian than software found in an automobile. As any driver can attest to, slapping a few touch screens on the dashboard doesn't work and is the car's equivalent of the pre-iPhone smartphone; clunky, ineffective, and needing to be rethought.

Apple would enter the automobile industry because they think they have a compelling product that capitalizes on taking software, hardware, and services to create a new experience. It is critical to not set limits on what that product may or may not be, as the actual automobile is dependent on advances in manufacturing, energy, retail, and even financing, all of which are open to change. The fact that the automobile genre will likely be around for a very long time only reinforces the idea of Apple wanting to become a long-term player in the space and see where software and hardware takes them. There is only so much that can be done by just shipping software to other automakers. Discounting future Apple products merely because they aren't like Apple's existing product line is not only short-sighted, but also lacking in intellectual honesty. 

Apple's Car Project Compared to the "Apple Way"

From the few details we know about the project, there are some very apparent similarities between this car project and the "Apple way", or the process Apple has followed in the past to turn raw ideas into finished products. 

The Apple pirate flag that flew outside the Bandley 3 building in 1983 and 1984 where the Mac team was located. The flag became a sign of rebellion, independence and original spirit. 

As of late last week, I was not convinced Apple was going to do a full-fledged car because there was little evidence of a complete team in place with senior managers and high-level outside hires. Up to then we had only reports of sporadic hires and vague plans. We now know Apple has formed such an autonomous group of employees, some of which were poached from other Apple divisions, and set up in an separate location away from HQ, similar in nature to a start-up. This type of information supports the idea that Apple is not just working on minor products or random software initiatives. I now believe Apple is indeed interested in an Apple-designed car. 

At Apple, ideas are grown from years of debate and collaboration. It is hard to write what Apple may or may not do in the automobile industry because Apple doesn't even know the answers yet. We are still looking at a 3-5 year horizon for this project. Ideas need to be discussed, tested, and at times thrown away in order to truly come up with a product worthy of receiving one of Apple's rare "yes" approvals. Having a team separated from everyone else and including various backgrounds and prior experiences makes this process that much more achievable. There is no cross effort to design a car in order to sell more of product A or B or to help boost sales in region A or B. This group's one and only task in to make a great product, with some of Apple's current products serving as merely ingredients, not beneficiaries.  

Difficulties 

Apple has traditionally entered industries that have been marked off as unattractive and difficult for new entrants. In this regard the automotive industry is a prime target for Apple.

Manufacturing. The capital intensive nature of the business leads to unproductively-long development cycles, while in the U.S., distribution has been hampered by outdated franchise laws designed in an era to prevent automakers from gaining too much power. However, Tesla's early success in electric vehicles stands out as evidence that we are indeed in a new era where technology is reducing barriers to entry for the automobile industry. It is no longer impossible for a start-up to design, manufacture, and sell an automobile. 

Recently, however, even Tesla is coming to terms with reality that an immense level of capital is needed to build tens of thousands of electric vehicles. The old way of building cars is still rearing its ugly face. Apple could approach this situation by relying on a third-party to build the vehicle. Apple has the most sophisticated supply chain and manufacturing partners on earth, so adding a car to the mix is not an impossible feat. There are assemblers in Europe that manufacture cars for other companies, similar to Foxconn producing the iPhone. Even Foxconn is planning on making electric vehicles. In addition, senior Apple management, including CFO Luca Maestri, has extensive experience in automobile manufacturing. Simply put, Apple is already ahead of most other technology companies when it comes to knowing how to build cars. 

Personalization. Automobiles are personal objects that are shaped by the cultures they provide transportation to, which makes uniformity in terms of design and distribution difficult. While America is rekindling its love for SUVs, other parts of the world crave smaller, more practical people movers. Finding the right balance, if that is even Apple's goal, would be a challenge. 

Safety. Automobiles are powerful machines that involve moving people at high speeds which contain an element of bodily injury that previous Apple products have never before included.

Additional Headaches. Retail, shipping, and maintenance are other aspects of the automobile industry that often lead to headaches. To make a car, Apple would need to address all of these issues. 

The primary question to ask in terms of these difficulties is if there is anything large enough to represent a valid reason for Apple not to go forward with its automobile ambitions.  At the end of the day, most of these difficulties fall by the wayside.

Let's Speculate

Apple industrial designer Marc Newson and SVP of design Jony Ive would likely play a vital role in the design (both hardware and software) of an Apple Car. Photo courtesy (Vanity Fair).

If there is a place for speculation, Apple is focused on rethinking everything about an automobile, from doors, seats, steering wheel, dashboard, brakes, manufacturing, retail and financing. Recent hires beyond just CarPlay expertise support this theory, as well as Apple's design focus, outlined by The New Yorker profile of Jony Ive. While most ideas may die on the drawing board, others may run into problems in manufacturing. The point is the simple question of what is an automobile needs to be asked when thinking of Apple's plans for entering the automobile industry. Why are certain things being done today? Why is this particular feature, knob, or dial present in all cars? Why are cars not able to do this or that? These type of questions are likely being asked right now within Apple's car team, at some undisclosed location away from Apple HQ. 

A new experience probably isn't possible in the automobile industry unless the topics of materials, manufacturing, and energy are addressed. More innovation would likely need to be done in parts of the product that a consumer will never see compared to the actual passenger compartments, matching much of Apple's history with previous products. Taking software and using it in terms of a car's safety, energy, and entertainment aspects may end up producing a much better experience for the driver and passengers. 

Apple's entry into the phone market didn't include grandiose ideas such as a phone that defied gravity or was able to read minds, instead it was a phone that utilized a new user interface. People often underestimate how a few rather simple ideas, done correctly, can actually come together in such a way as to produce a completely innovative experience. I would think the same will apply to Apple and the automobile. A new user interface that allows the driver to interact with a completely re-thought automobile is Apple's likely focus. Of course, design will exist at nearly every corner and will be the glue that helps turn ideas into reality. 

While there continues to be an ongoing debate whether autonomous vehicles will be a reality or not within the next 10-15 years, the much bigger focus should be that the automobile represents a device (albeit a big device) in our lives that in one way or another will be involved in society for a very long time.  The auto industry is in a natural position for technology to play a much bigger role in going forward. Why let automakers with little to no technological experience continue to make suboptimal products?

Apple Ambition

The primary takeaway from all of this car news is that Apple has no intention in playing it safe or resting on its laurels. Even though Apple's current product lineup has plenty of room to grow, Apple isn't looking to coast on iPhone fumes, but rather tackle the next big issue. Much of the developed world has gotten use to what travel means in terms of automobiles. Apple is interested in rethinking travel. It is important to not simply hitch on to the idea of Apple selling a car, but also rethinking certain aspects of the automobile, including software, battery technology and robotics.  

Apple's focus on other industries, including the home and health, also need to be rethought. While Apple management has said that they spend most of their time deciding which products to focus on, observers can no longer just consider small pocketable devices, but instead entire industries with a range of product sizes and usages. 

The automobile's future is one filled with technology and Apple wants to be part of the game. Using a structure and mission statement created over the past 15 years, Apple is focused on creating a product worthy of an Apple logo. Only then will the real adventure begin as the automobile is still in the beginning stages of its long journey.  

Apple's ambition knows no bounds.

Receive my analysis and perspective on Apple throughout the week via exclusive daily emails (2-3 stories a day, 10-12 stories a week). To sign up, visit the membership page.

Three Month Update

Above Avalon has been in existence for three months. I provided an update as to how things were going after the first month, so I figured an update after the first quarter would be appropriate. The primary metric I've been tracking continues to be unique visitors, and I'm quite happy with where things are heading. 

Posts: 68

Unique Visitors:

• Month 1: 16,528
• Month 2: 25,464
• Month 3: 25,324 (1,000/day normal run rate)

While there were 4-5 days that saw an unusually high amount of referral traffic from other sites, 65% of traffic is either direct or from Twitter. There have been a few other sources that have been helpful in spreading the word about the site on nearly a daily basis. Thank you. 

Subscribers:

• Above Avalon Twitter: 1,110
• RSS: 2,253
• Podcast RSS: 3,686

I started to add video into the mix and am pleased with the results. I expect to publish more videos in the future. The AAPL Orchard daily email now has 1,400 subscribers and continues to exceed my expectations.  

Top Ten Most Popular Above Avalon Posts:

1. Selling Apple Watch
2. Apple's $3 Billion Bet on Reinventing the Music Industry
3. Apple Will Save $3 Billion in 2015 by Selling 16GB iPhone 6 and 6 Plus
4. Apple's Plan for iPad in an iPhone World
5. Jeff Williams: Apple CEO Material 
6. Jony Ive is the Most Powerful Person at Apple
7. Apple Watch Isn't a Luxury Watch
8. The Scott Forstall Mystery
9. Apple Watch: A Superb Economic Moat Years in the Making
10. Larger iPhones May Be a Game Changer

If you are reading this, chances are good that you contributed quite a bit to these results, so thank you. As I said during my first month update, a few retweets and link sharing make a difference. I continue to get email and messages from people who only discovered the site from hearing about it from a friend.  My goal with Above Avalon is not only to understand how Apple looks at the world, but also to think differently about the world beyond Apple. My long-term goal is to have many of you join me in this journey, and so far things have exceeded my expectations. Thank you for your early support!

Neil 

The Trick of Downplaying Hardware

"I don't really think that Apple was ever a hardware company, even at the beginning of time."  -Tim Cook, February 2015

Tim Cook presented at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference earlier this week to a crowd of Wall Street investors that have historically had trouble appropriately valuing hardware companies. Cook's comments on hardware/software piqued my interest. Cook reiterated that Apple has never been a hardware company but is instead all about the software. There is much more to the story with many implications on how the world sees Apple and where Apple's future lies. By putting the focus on software, Apple is purposely downplaying hardware. 

Software plays a vital role in Apple's business, and there is little evidence to suggest otherwise. However, some of Tim Cook's comments would lead people to scratch their heads. For example, on one hand, Cook reiterates that it's all about the software, citing examples such as iTunes, iOS, OS X, and now services like Apple Pay. On the other hand, Cook is quick to say it's all about the experience of integrating hardware, software, and services, such as the iPod + iTunes juggernaut, iPhone, iPad, and soon Apple Watch. The two arguments don't quite mesh seamlessly as the latter requires well-designed hardware to produce the critical experience that Apple is focused on selling. 

Apple is purposely downplaying hardware, which by incident is validation that hardware is a crucial piece to Apple's success. I've long felt that Jony Ive's design acumen and his creations ranging from iMac to iPod, iPhone, iPad, and now Apple Watch are responsible for where Apple is today. Why downplay hardware? They want to direct attention elsewhere. 

Apple excels at producing hardware, and one can argue we are getting to the stage where Apple's supply chain is reaching such a point that competitors are simply unable to compete as Apple secures all available components and resources. By stressing software, Apple would be shifting the focus away from its hardware strength. 

Another issue that I'm sure Apple is well aware of is that Wall Street and Silicon Valley simply don't understand hardware. There is a widely held view that all hardware becomes commoditized and as a result, companies with above average hardware margins and focus will see pain. GoPro, a 13-year old company now with a $6 billion market cap flew under the radar for years because of its reliance on hardware. Meanwhile, software enterprise start-ups are the envy of all. This is not to suggest that software is overrated, but that not all hardware is created equally, and it's when a single company begins to control the entire experience around that hardware that magic happens. 

This dilemma leads to discussion of Apple's foray into different parts of our life including our home, health, car, and wallet, with platforms built on iOS. The situation magnificently encapsulates Apple's trick of downplaying hardware. While the focus is on software taking over our world, in reality, what is happening is the iPhone's value proposition is increasing. Software is increasing hardware's value. Of course, few will notice this and as a result hardware will continue to be underestimated, but Apple won't mind. It's not easy to downplay one's strengths, but Apple has excelled at it for years. 

The Evolving Notification

Notifications play a crucial role in how we interact with technology. Just as gadgets evolve, notifications haven't remained static. As we enter the wearables era, the notification is about to undergo one of its more significant advancements in history. The Apple Watch will improve on the pager from the 1990s and position silent haptic feedback as a notification. The ability to send and receive messages via "taps" on the wrist will turn the modern notification into a communication medium. While the smartphone may have taken the notification and run a little too far with it in the wrong direction, the Apple Watch will likely put the notification on a new, more sustainable path.   

Even though we now associate notifications with pop-ups on our phones and tablets, the idea of a notification has been part of our lives for a very long time. A notification is simply something that gives us information to compute. A few everyday examples have included:

1885: A steam train whistle (and smoke) alerting people of an approaching train.

1935: A raised mailbox flag indicating to the mail carrier that a letter needs to be picked up.

1975: An air siren to warn of a nearby tornado.

1995: A vibration and chime on a pager alerting the user to an incoming call. 

2005: A chime alerting the user that a new AOL IM has been received on the desktop computer. 

2010: A blinking light on a Blackberry indicating new email.

2015: A popup on a smartphone indicating Sam Smith won a Grammy.

2016: A double tap on the wrist from Apple Watch informing us that our significant other is leaving the store.

Taking a look at some of these notifications through the years, some of which are still common today, the smartphone's impact on notification evolution stands out. The smartphone era expanded the notification to include various types of data, including: breaking news, app updates and song recommendations. The ability to push text notifications have produced negative side effects as companies have flocked to notifications to get attention. Not only are we inundated with pop-ups, unless we manage our phone settings carefully, but even the idea of a proper notification has lost its meaning. The notification went from a useful source of information to mostly a marketing plow generating interest in apps. 

Apple Watch has the potential to put the notification back on track. With the expectation that the device will be worn on the wrist for most of the day, an Apple Watch will not only add personalization and customization to notifications, but it will transform the way we think of notifications in mobile. Apple Watch will turn notifications into a new form of communication.

Notifications on Apple Watch will likely continue a few broader notification trends that have been evolving over time:

• Personalization. Wearable devices promote personalization in a much more effective way than smartphones. I would expect more notification filtering, reducing the number of notifications pushed to a wearable compared to a phone. It will be very hard for a news app to be able to push breaking news to Apple Watch in the same way popups are sent to a smart phone. Whereas we may not mind getting notified on our phone whenever someone messaged us on Twitter, we may want to only be notified when certain people contact us if notifications are pushed to Apple Watch.  
• Customization. Having the ability to determine what kind of notification is desired (Short Look or Long Look) dependent on location or social setting (wrist raise or not) will become the norm.

I would expect the definition of a notification to once again include haptic feedback (vibration) with Apple Watch. In such an example, a simple tap on the watch face would produce a silent vibration on the recipient's wrist (assuming they are wearing Apple Watch). That tap, or a series of long and short taps, can both serve as a notification and message. In this context, the pager of the 1990s stood out. While a pager could have been worn on the waist to alert the user via vibration, the notification contained only so much information that would signal the importance of the message. The ability to communicate was still mostly one-sided. With Apple Watch, the notification can become a two-way communication medium, serving both as an indicator of an incoming message as well as the message itself.  While much of this sounds similar to Morse code, one key difference is that Apple Watch users will be able to personalize the messaging, coming up with their own patterns and codes to communicate with a select group of family and friends. 

Given my expectations on where notifications are headed, I have some doubts over wearable devices, such as smart rings and bracelets, that position notifications as simply an alert. If these devices are unable to provide ways to interact and respond directly to the notification, I have trouble seeing where value is created. Since most wearables require a phone, the primary reason someone would buy and wear a wearable is to remove the need to check their phone, not to serve as a reminder to check their phone.

Notifications play a vital role in our daily lives. While the smartphone may have taken the notification and run a little too far with it in the wrong direction, the Apple Watch will likely position the notification as a tool to utilize technology in a more personalized way.  

I publish a daily email about Apple called AAPL Orchard. Click here for more information and to subscribe.