How to cross the gap between "wearable" and "wearable"

The 2013 is "the Year of wearable", does it mean that 2014 or the near future is "wearable"? I'm sure you can understand what I mean, if the next wearable device, a technology that represents the trend of hardware development, is not universally available, then it will always be a tall vocabulary and a plaything of technology.

In this vigorous technological revolution, in fact, mostly by the media too much hype. The rest of the big wave to see and solve the problem, the first when it is necessary to break the "crisis", and then to see the "opportunity" to achieve from "wearable" to "can wear" the perfect leap!

Advanced Intelligence: Subversion, not extension

The first thing to declare is that this is not a cold water sticker. I really agree with the point of view on the current use of intelligent hardware to define the frequency of the computer is the use of days or even weeks, the mobile phone is in hours or even minutes for the use of frequency, and smart wearable devices will be seconds or even microseconds for the use of frequency applications. In accordance with the general development rules, high-frequency applications will be "river closure" users need to obtain low-frequency applications. So I've always believed that I could wear the ubiquitous future.

At present, there is no inevitable irreplaceable equipment function point, to support such an unlimited business opportunities in the new market.

Just as a train is never a horse that runs faster, a rocket is more than a plane that flies faster. All intelligent devices with universal applications must be subversive, not extended. From the wearable equipment industry, at least two dimensions can be worn to achieve the level of subversion of the traditional needs of users:

First, being conceptualized and being killed by intelligence. From the clothes we wear, the shoes we wear, wearing a watch, we can rely on these separate equipment to achieve warmth, time and so can bring comfort and convenience of the function, if these devices put on the "smart" hat, only to increase the perception of freshness, then, This is undoubtedly a metaphysical "intelligence".

Take the smart watch at the current Rotten Street for example, in fact, most of the robot table "time" function added a "fashion" element, and at most, some similar applications of mobile phone app "Cram" into this screen small and beautiful, battery life is still poor in the technology of the creature.

What is the so-called intelligence?

For example, from functional phones to the evolutionary revolution of smartphones, do you think it's just touch-human interaction or a big screen? In my opinion, whether it is the iphone or Samsung, its subversion lies in its traditional use of mobile phones to "listen" function to upgrade to "see" the function. A set of data cited in the article "How lazy I used to be with the user's habits":

The average smartphone user looks at about 34 times a day, and the frequency of mobile phones is as high as 1 times every 6.5 minutes, and the phone is already a new "organ" for everyone.

Notice the word--"view". You can also verify this in reality: You see how many people are talking on the phone on the subway every day, and how many people are using their mobile phones to go up and down the news and to hit the plane.

Along such a line of thought, in wearable equipment, if can be in the name of intelligence really subversive equipment in the traditional sense of "wear" and "wear" function, it must be excellent.

Second, there are many devices that rely on smart-phone access. Some people in the industry said earlier that "it would be better to be the tail of a smartphone than to wear a pimp." "In fact, it also implied that the current wearable equipment in the confrontation with the smartphone lacks a strong power." So, a lot of smart bracelet, watches, including big-name Galaxy Gear, can not escape with the smartphone or PC-side "the same Taiwan opera" charm.

For a long time at least now and in the future, wearable devices cannot be valued independently of other devices. It must work together with smartphones and PC terminals. Unless you have more computing power than smartphones, like Google Glass, it's more important not to rely on any terminals or to display data as a projector interface. From collecting data to presenting data, it is done independently.

Wearable nature: A service person, not an interfering person

Discard the contrast above and return to the wearable device itself.

Wearable devices should first be defined as a terminal, an intelligent terminal that helps humans communicate the future in a more convenient and instant manner, essentially a tool that serves people, or, in a fashion, the "strongest brain" that deals with branching tasks. However, the reality is often caught in such a misunderstanding: a lot of wearable equipment in the device itself, dazzling "functional control thinking" in the constant interference with the user's thinking, ignoring the behind can provide users with services. Collect data, render data, test data ... And then what?

According to the principle of equivalent exchange or energy conservation, in front of large data, must first clear you can give the user what, you can provide the service is few, then requests also certainly will be few; you provide users with a pile of garbage, then do not want to get a large bucket of gold from the user. Referring to the author's more understanding of the "Picooc correlation" (an intelligent scale) model, you have to collect data, the presentation of data after a service and guidance of the feedback mechanism to inform users of future sports and diet programs. Perhaps the future, but also to intervene in expert-level figures, according to the movement of information, health data to help users provide more reliable advice.

Therefore, those who spell the hardware parameters of the spell, the design can wear the wearer should pay attention to a focus-your final Mr Right is not a device, but a service.

Industry development: The necessary "leader" and unified standard

Some time ago, someone asked the question: Will there be an apple-grade "leader" in the future wearable field? Many people replied that they should still depend on the Apple department. The answer is directed at iwatch.

I also look forward to the birth of iwatch, after all, Apple, Google and Microsoft and other industry giants each created a different intelligent ecosystem, the involvement of the big guys will certainly give wearable equipment more possibilities and demonstrative significance. Cook had a slight crown for Apple wearable equipment-"an important branch of the apple Tree", and many small companies were looking at the stem for a moment, hoping it would fall off the ripe red apple and hit themselves with the "Newton-class" inspiration.

In addition to the "leader", I think there needs to be a dedicated open platform for wearable technology, to share resources, such as the use of computers and mobile phones, such as standardized parts. Like rebels, it's easy to find upstream screen vendors and processor vendors. Want to "mix" a smart watch, bracelet? The cost can also be reduced to the popular level of psychological price.

And, of course, there is an urgent need to address it-to set up and perfect the uniform wearable industry standards. A bunch of jumping "tech grasshoppers" are tied up, well, it's time for a rope!