The modern smartphone has little in common with the devices that were known as telephones until about 20 years ago, yet it has retained the name. It's not easy to predict something like this. (In the film Back to the Future II, the hero's 2015 house is filled with telefax receivers. There's a scene where his boss sends a fax to all of them and printed pages start pouring out. This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!)
The meaning of 'watch' as a timepiece may soon become as antiquated as the meaning of 'phone' as a fixed receiver on an analog landline.
If you think about what smartphones are really most like, they're basically pocket-watches: big flat things with a metal case and a glass face that you flip open an optional protective cover to look at, which sit in your pocket when not in use, and trail a cord out of said pocket to somewhere else on your person (your ears, nowadays.)
That said, the word "watch" is likely a very good word to keep for the wrist-devices: their natural UX, given the limited possible set of affordances, is designed around passive alerts. Which is to say, they watch for events, and you watch them.
Great analogy. Just enormously big and inconvenient pocketwatches with a lot of complications. (/me wearing wristwatch and a SonyEricsson W580 in my pocket)
Exactly. In 2006, no one expected Apple to be in the business of making phones. And they never really wanted you to think of the iPhone as just a phone. It was more like an iPod that could make phonecalls and other magical things. They wanted to define a new product category, and they did. This isn't a watch, it's a way to see your iPhone all the time without pulling it out of your pocket; it's seeing all your notifications and looking good (as opposed to looking ridiculous like Google Glass).
> In 2006, no one expected Apple to be in the business of making phones.
My recollection of history is a bit different. What I remember is that people were practically begging Apple to build a phone. You might say there was a half-hearted attempt with the ROKR, in partnership with Motorola, but it didn't really address what people were seeking. The calls for a phone done the "Apple way" continued. Now, I do believe Apple ended up greatly exceeding the expectations of the customers with the iPhone and, as you suggest, perhaps even created a new market segment because of that, but was hardly a surprise to see them announce something phone-like.
hindsight is 20-20. Apple was oft quoted as saying they wouldn't do it. The ROKR was a disaster but perhaps made them realize they had to do it themselves.
> This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!
There's a part in this terrible move "Time Cop" (1994, set in 2004) where one of the characters uses this communications device that's a rectangular slab with a 2" or 3" bezel and is two or three inches deep, but has a touch screen. I thought, wow, this is what they thought an iPad would be, but what we have is actually better.
The modern smartphone has little in common with the devices that were known as telephones until about 20 years ago, yet it has retained the name. It's not easy to predict something like this. (In the film Back to the Future II, the hero's 2015 house is filled with telefax receivers. There's a scene where his boss sends a fax to all of them and printed pages start pouring out. This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!)
The meaning of 'watch' as a timepiece may soon become as antiquated as the meaning of 'phone' as a fixed receiver on an analog landline.