Is Apple Watch Conceptually Flawed?

This 12-minute video from Quinn Nelson of YouTube review channel Snazzy Labs is a well-presented critique of why Apple Watch could be a conceptually flawed blockbuster hit. That’s right: Nelson is not advocating doom and gloom like so many others, as he smartly recognizes Apple’s tremendous influence over the marketplace. Unfortunately, I think he’s not-so-smartly underselling certain features of Apple Watch because those features aren’t all that Apple Watch will do. See what I mean:

I just think that, conceptually speaking, the Apple Watch is flawed because it calls for our attention. It says, “Hey, look at me, play with me, I’m a watch, play Flappy Bird on [me].” No, [Smartwatches aren’t designed] to be a primary input device. We’re supposed to look at it, see the notification, and be done. And that’s where I think that Apple Watch as a whole is misconstrued, because it’s not made as a complementary device. It’s made with a powerful processor, a lot of memory, because it’s designed to be an actual primary input device.

Glances and notifications are heavily touted by Apple — and by potential Apple Watch customers — as a primary use case for the wearable, at least for the launch of version one next month. For now, Apple’s even actively encouraging third-party developers to focus almost entirely on these two aspects alone. There’s every indication that Apple Watch is going to be an absolute notifications powerhouse. It’s just going to do a lot more, too. Which is a good thing.

So I have trouble understanding why anyone would ever consider extra versatility to be a detriment to a technologically-oriented product in an industry defined more by rapid change than by anything else. Nelson’s rationale, of course, is that all these “extraneous” functional accoutrements are responsible for pushing the Apple Watch MSRP too high, and that Android Wear devices (which he admits he really likes) can be had for $50 to $100 less. But here’s the thing: Android watches don’t set the market price, because Android watches don’t sell. And six months from now, nobody’s going to want an Android watch for $249 when Apple Watch is only — yes, only — a hundred bucks more.

Nelson’s final complaint is that Apple Watch isn’t IP67 certified, and he echoes early Apple reservations about swimming or showering with the device (albeit that latter prohibition was somewhat officially withdrawn by Tim Cook a week or so after Nelson’s video was published):

If I have to be conscientious or cautious of what is on my wrist because I don’t want to damage it if it accidentally gets in the water or I go swimming with it, it’s a real problem.

No it isn’t. Are you conscientious enough about the phone in your pocket to take it out of there before you jump into the pool? Do you leave your tablet on the bathroom counter before hopping in the shower? Most folks have no problem with such basic precautions. Plus, these things don’t slip your mind unless you let them, and it won’t take long to reset your waterproof watch-wearing habits — presuming you actually have any. Remember, Apple is going primarily after a generation of customers that have long since abandoned the concept of wrist wear itself. Just like price-point, Apple is setting the new standard here, and Apple Watch is going to be the standard-bearer for the entire future of wearable technology itself.

I think Nelson’s going to end up liking his a whole lot.