Apple chief sees computers on wrists - not in glasses

I guess that's one of the reasons why Apple is going back to Samsung displays after Apple tried other suppliers (LG, Japan Display) and found out the both quality and quantity suffered big time.

Then why is Apple already having Sharp making the displays for the next generation iPhone?

A wrist-worn device would be way too small to be good for anything that requires a visual display. That's the beauty of the Google Glass. It's certainly just a prototype but it ingeniously uses your entire field of vision to display information, kind of like an Apache pilot/gunner's.

Sorry, I'm a die hard Apple fan but I think GG is way cooler than the watch.

I want a pair of the blue ones!!!

@smithinjapan - because iPod and iPhone started where, exactly? iPhone took five years to put out on the market and was the first 'smartphone', which everyone else then proceeded to copy, especially Samsung.

Actually the first smart phone design with a touch screen was created by LG and it was called LG Prada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

At the end of the day, Apple copied LG

Apple steals another idea and claims it...

http://getpebble.com/

Pebble anyone?

The glasses just seem creepy to me, like something from the BORG. I really don't want to strap something to my face. You're also going to have those people sitting on park benches who look like they are just staring off into space like they're on drugs while they read their screens. And if it's just a display there's no way I'm paying $1,500 for it.

Here's the kicker, you would say the exact opposite if it was an apple product :)

Glass reminds me of the Brainstorm movie.

yeah, and tablets weren't cool until apple created the market with the ipad. i think apple will do something special and make watches the next...wait for it....legendary product.

why not go all out for neural implants?

Exactly. That's what I'm holding out for. Can you imagine your brain being plugged directly into the internet and all possibilities that could lead to. Just imagine all the free porn you could access from the safety of your own mind...

I never had the calculator watches during the 80's. They looked cooler than carrying around a real calculator, but it didn't work so well. I don't see myself getting an iwatch anytime soon. Give me something that doesn't require batteries or much conscious thought to do what I want a watch to do, tell the time.

One key thing about a smart phone is the screen size. We get a majority of our information visually, and a sufficiently large enough screen size is needed. So, screen size does matter. What can a wrist-watch really do that a phone can't? The pebble watch link noted above does show some novel uses if you bike or run and want a more complex speedometer. Buzzing when you receive a call or email. No thanks. Vibrating phones can make me jump. I don't need a watch to vibrate just because of a call or email comes in on the phone.

A Dick Tracey phone? That might be cool. But!!!, Apple will probably limit the functionality to facetime, which will probably mean you can only call other iWatch people or people on a Mac. So, the likelihood of using said Dick Tracey phone to make video calls would be small.

GG does appear to be cooler than walking down the street bumping into walls, poles and people because your eyes are looking down glued to a phone. Still, it is a little creepy that someone could be videoing your conversation. Not like it doesn't happen now, but with GG it is out there and obvious.

So, no iWatch or GG for me.

So how would you stream a movie or surf the web on your wrist watch?

it should used curved glass and fit length-wise on the forearm, like a pip-boy 2000

Feel sorry for you dude, the only think clunky in old outdated the iOS interface is.

Apple was working on its version of iGlasses but decided it was already so yesterday, so decided to take a leap further with its iBrain project. Two microscopic electrodes are mounted on the spinal cord at the back of the neck bye passing the eyes altogether. The info is fed directly into the brain.

Hahaha.. have you ever watched the series "fringe"? do you mean we all in the future we will become like the observers in that series?

A pair of sunglasses that could turn into reading glasses would be nice.

@chucky3176: There already are bendable displays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3E7fUynrZU

Seriously, how can a device worn on your wrist be practical when i feel that the display on my smart phone is oftentimes too small to read maps, e-mails, websites, etc.? Like Upgrayedd said, sooner than later we'll have these functions on a contact lens. These glasses are merely the first step in that direction...

It sounds like Cook is trying too hard to create competition where there really isn't any right now. Google has innovative products, Samsung has superior products...Apple needs to bring more than words to bear! I'd love to see something as innovative as their massively popular products were when they first came out.

As it is, I far favor the idea of glasses to wrist-born items. Hands get wet, arms can be occupied, etc. Glasses are always there, you interact with and through them. I can't wait for a full field heads up display in sunglasses. :D

Sony has a prototype wrist computer with a projector built into it.

http://www.geek.com/news/sony-offers-computer-you-can-wear-on-your-wrist-in-2020-1259041/

chucky. I dont think that flexible displays will be useful for personal phones. But as I remember sony had one of those flexibles like 7 years ago. something fancy but worthless

I can hardly wait until the iEye comes out. Sign me up! ;| <-- me grimacing as the Apple Store Genius "installs" it into my face with a single brisk shove. Ouch.

So how would you stream a movie or surf the web on your wrist watch?

Why would you want to watch a movie when walking around anyway?

Apple was working on its version of iGlasses but decided it was already so yesterday, so decided to take a leap further with its iBrain project.

I was watching "Stargate SG1" the other night, and there was a whole society who connect to a kind of internet via direct contact through their brain... I really don't like where these are heading - it'll create a society of people who won't even need to get out of bed... ever. Maybe never even need to be awake.

"Most young people don't wear a watch"

Yeah, they're too busy playing games, texting and surfing the Net on their smartphones to strap on a wristwatch.

Lots of comments here about how a wrist screen would be too small for watching movies, etc. Well, of course it would. It wouldn't be used as a standalone computer. It would be for all the things that we currently have to pull our phones out of our pockets such as alerts, text messages, etc.

Imagine you get an incoming phone call. Instead of pulling out your phone, you just look at your watch and then tap it to send the call to your bluetooth earphone. Or, tap to tell the caller you are, say, driving and will call back later. Or, just ignore.

It could be used for other things, too, such as receiving and replying to text messages (replying by voice input), starting music, selecting playlists or even telling time. ;-)

@bannedacctsam - the first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen. I had a touchscreen phone by Sony Ericsson which existed before that one, and the first one was supposedly IBM's Simon PDA.

I need an OS that is clean and efficient for our business and personal affairs. Apple is the answer to that

Was an apple user, 30 mins with android 4 and I bought the phone. Trust me open your eyes to what is out there and don't defend your expensive purchases.

USNinJapan2: "That's the beauty of the Google Glass. It's certainly just a prototype but it ingeniously uses your entire field of vision to display information, kind of like an Apache pilot/gunner's."

Yeah, and if people are whining about people texting while walking down the street now with mere smartphones, imagine when your field of vision is taken up (at least half) by a computer.

I don't think the glasses thing will get too far; it's not feasible in daily life. As Cook said, and while many would wear sunglasses, there are too many who don't need them or wear contacts (now a contact LENS computer!!).

As for the iWatch, which I'm sure Samsung is already busy copying, it's true it would be small, but I doubt it's intended purpose is for watching movies so much as it would be computing using voice commands. Fact is we know so little about it. Anyway, all this competition only promises that there is progress, and to an extent diversity. Let people wear Google Glass while staring at their iWatch.

I actually see the glasses route winning out in the long run - but only when technology has advanced so far to the point where we have google contact lenses. Or just straight up synthetic eyes. I can see that happening within 30 years.

LostinNagoya without his Brand-bias? wow. -clap clap-

Apple will sue Samsung and LG for copying their smart watches when they already released prototypes of their own smart watches MONTHS ago.

Question is, how much will they cost? If I was to spend few hundreds on any wrist watches, I would rather spend my money on CITIZEN/Seiko watch.

Because he isn't a visionary.

he's right, no doubt about it. it is too difficult to use the visual system for multitasking (switching focus from glass to external reality), while it is less difficult to just move your head and eyes from your wrist / arm to whatever else attracts your attention. however, one must say that apple only wants to make more money by giving you the best practical tech that really works, while google is using a lot of money to advance science.

Since we don't know what Apple has on its design boards, and therefore have no idea whether they are designing a "smart watch" or not, this is all speculation and there's not much more point to it than that.

Who knows? Tim Cook saying that Apple is not interested in a product like Google Glass might mean that they are already working on it, but don't want to let the cat out of the bag.

What I'm more excited about is the fact that Sir Jony Ive is redesigning the iOS and MacOS interfaces.

That's going to be very interesting.

I'd go for the wrist communicator over the spy glasses any day. I grew up in an era of wrist comms (Thunderbirds, etc) and that would be a dream come true. That and hovercars, hovertrains and owning my own Spitfire ^_^

The glasses only really work for people who have no need for corrective lenses, so no use to me... and besides, I really don't like the idea of walking around with a PC stuck to my face.

The biggest reason why I like Apple is their build quality. In terms of computers and phones I don't see much that can compete with that. And I have a PC and Motorola smartphone.

The glasses just seem creepy to me, like something from the BORG. I really don't want to strap something to my face. You're also going to have those people sitting on park benches who look like they are just staring off into space like they're on drugs while they read their screens. And if it's just a display there's no way I'm paying $1,500 for it.

I can see using it at home. If you're watching a game it would be cool to get stat updates, or maybe information while you're watching a movie. A cable guide would be nice as well.

@LostinNagoya LOL. Then why do you care about Galaxy S series' designs? Shouldn't their functions come first? Not their designs?

All you people are not thinking enough. What makes you think the display will be on your wrist? Your watch will be your CPU and your iPhone a display for it. Think differently people!

John MasterMAY. 30, 2013 - 08:54AM JST LostinNagoya without his Brand-bias? wow. -clap clap-

You know why you are clapping? Because I am a conscious buyer who invest my money only things that do work. Not things that work so-so. You know what I mean: Apple only. I bet in 3 years time we will see only , well, funny people wearing Google glasses. Not that iWatch will be a success. I doubt that too.

Bertie: "Apple doesn't generally CREATE entirely new products out of whole cloth. They INNOVATE, which means that they take already existing elements and tie them together in a way that becomes something new."

Yeah, because iPod and iPhone started where, exactly? iPhone took five years to put out on the market and was the first 'smartphone', which everyone else then proceeded to copy, especially Samsung.

BertieWooster is correct.

Apple's keys to success are innovation and marketing.

Apple did not invent the mp3 player, the tablet, or the smartphone -- they innovated on existing products.

BTW I'm not bashing Apple in anyway -- I LOVE APPLE products. In any business innovation and marketing is key to survival.

Was an apple user, 30 mins with android 4 and I bought the phone. Trust me open your eyes to what is out there and don't defend your expensive purchases.

Was an apple user, 30 mins with android 4 and I trashed the phone. Trust me open your eyes to what is out there and don't defend your clunky purchases.

The next generation iphone series is ready to launch.

you know i thought watches were a thing of the 90s? i guess these oldies like Cook are still stuck in the 90s.

@John Master: I don't care about GS design, I just have the opinion they are cheaply ugly. Yes, functions first, that's why I use Apple, it works. And Apple design is a plus. As I said many times, I need an OS that is clean and efficient for our business and personal affairs. Apple is the answer to that. But I doubt people will start wearing watches, or glasses to read emails. What I said is that between the two technologies the less annoying one is the watch, easy to forget you're carrying one. I would not wear tech-glasses not even if it was designed by Ferrari and used Apple technology. My reading glasses already are too clunky and obstrusive when I leave home with them on my head.

@Moondog: excelent point.

gogogoMay. 31, 2013 - 12:22PM JST Feel sorry for you dude, the only think clunky in old outdated the iOS interface is.

Not clunky or outdated! Instead seasoned and reliable ... unlike Android.

Brand-bias aside, Cook really made a point: people want to get rid of glasses, two of my neighboors have had lasic this year. For aesthetics reasons. I wear glasses, but only when reading. Can't imagine myself wearing one and walking down the street checking e-mails. But watches too, is something people are wearing for aesthetics reasons these days. I asked my nephew if he wanted one as a birthday gift, he declined. Personally, if I had to chose one of the technologies, I would opt for the watch. It's easy to forget you're wearing one when you don't need it. Not the same can be said about glasses. For those curious the last Apple US add, a man is supposedly wearing an iWatch, lots of sites of rumours published it.

Apple doesn't generally CREATE entirely new products out of whole cloth. They INNOVATE, which means that they take already existing elements and tie them together in a way that becomes something new.

There were tablets before the iPad, in fact, there was an Apple tablet before the MS tablet, called the Newton. There were MP3 players before the iPod. There were phones that did various smart things before the iPhone. But nobody managed to put all these elements into a product that would disrupt the market.

Until Apple did it.

Perhaps the reason why they could do this is that Apple is the only company left that makes both hard- and software. In electronics, Japan has had some great products, the SONY Walkman is a good example. But their weakness has always been software.

I'm sure Apple has some great products up its sleeve that will once more disrupt the market. It's just that Apple's philosophy is not to make a noise about a product until it actually exists.

Apple doesn't do vapourware.

To make wearable computers, you need flexible displays and flexible components including memory chips. But unfortunately for Apple, Samsung leads research and development in those areas too. I guess that's one of the reasons why Apple is going back to Samsung displays after Apple tried other suppliers (LG, Japan Display) and found out the both quality and quantity suffered big time.