Kevin Lynch and Alan Dye Share Behind-the-Scenes Details on Designing Apple Watch

[jeffdingesfilms]

I think that perhaps it'll be what CAN be done with this wearable, the longer it's out, that will define it one way or another.

That's it's biggest selling point though and what makes it revolutionary. It's the most personal device ever created which is attached to a MATURE app development framework.

The apple watch is revolutionary because it improves upon apps currently running on your phone, like your to do lists or calendar, notifications, maps/gps, phone, the list goes on and on and on.

The apple watch is revolutionary because this is the end to phone-only apps.

For now on, all future apps will incorporate a personable wearable device or be considered obsolete!!

 

[attila]

Those badges look great, but don't they belong back in iOS 6?

A hint that they will be adding some soul back into iOS9?

(we can only hope)

 

[nando87]

Yes. I might inject the word "uniquely" after "CAN". Else, for me anyway, it runs into the "why do I need this?" obstacle of "just pull out my iPhone" (which I have to have with me anyway).

Right now, the uniquely elements are a few sensors not on the phone which yield an ability to do (gimmicky?) things like send your heartbeat to someone you know. There's a "cool" and "look what I have" element to being an early adopter too. If we reach, we might spin "uniquely" into not having to involve our hands (to reach in our pocket to pull out the iPhone). But after that, the "why can't I just use my iPhone?" comeback seems to cover almost all bases.

Is that enough to move the masses to rationalize the Watch? Or is there enough to still be exploited by developers that will not be "about as good" to "just as good" to superior when the same benefit is offered on the iPhone. Maybe. But it's hard to imagine much that can be uniquely done on the watch better than it can be done on an iPhone.

Relative to the "gamechanger" perception, it's easy to recognize very tangible "uniquely" benefits in iPod, iPhone and iPad. Each brought a very obvious, mainstream benefit(s) to the market (which is not just us here at MacRumors). Is there enough "uniquely" associated with this watch... for the masses to buy it at a "gamechanger" sales volume?

I wouldn't say the iPad was very easy to recognize as a gamechanger. It was a big, less communication capable iphone, with a size which makes it more useful for some tasks. You know what, change big for small and there you have the apple watch. All the iPad is, is because of its apps, the gadget wasn't and isn't more than that, a big iphone. The last mindblowing and truly innovative gadget from Apple was indeed the iPhone, don't let Steve's kool aid get you drunk

 

[jeffdingesfilms]

Is there enough "uniquely" associated with this watch... for the masses to buy it at a "gamechanger" sales volume?

I think that its wrong to look at things from a general consumer perspective. My parents, for example own iphones and they and a lot of older people never even bother downloading any 3rd party apps.

One could argue that its those people with high disposable income but with very little appreciation for technological benefits that drive apple's success.

However that doesn't mean that apple's products aren't technologically advanced or provide value, just because people like my parents don't understand potential uses.

Younger more technologically savvy people understand the benefits such a personal wearable device has in conjunction with a phone. With technology you have to be able to give to receive. You can't just sit back and let computers do everything for you. It's always been that way and will always be that way. Certain people understand tech and certain people don't. There's a place for it for everyone.

 

[rowspaxe]

Actually, it's called having respect for others.

that is an amazing ability!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's the most personal device ever created

That's Apple spin. What does that even mean? Is it "more personal" than iPhone? iPhone is still going to be used in more places by more people than this Watch. Doesn't that make the iPhone more personal than the watch?

Is it "more personal" because it's smaller? iPhones before the 6 were smaller, so were they more personal? We can still buy iPhones that are not the 6, so why aren't we drawn to them if size = "more personal"?

Is it "more personal" because we strap it on? There's been strap-ons bands for iPhones and iPods for many years. Some of us buy them but it doesn't seem to be a mainstream thing.

To me "more personal" might be about privacy or more private data or similar, though this Watch holds nothing not also on the iPhone.

Apple marketing is great at coining phrases as part of selling new products. "One-handed use" was a big one when smaller-screen iPhones were being offered against bigger-screen competitors. But then Apple rolls out bigger-screen iPhones and "one-handed use" is spun much less. Is "more personal" this device's "one-handed use" or is there something fundamentally true about that phrase... that is lost on the iPhone that also has to be with every watch owner?

 

[rowspaxe]

If this product is so pointless why are so many smartphone makers coming out with new watches?

There is a herd dynamic--and herds have been wrong before

----------

where's your resume of products?

Where is Tim Cook's?

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Am I the only one bothered by the creation of a new font using a name Apple has previously used for an Apple-custom font?

The original San Francisco typeface (launched with the original Macintosh in 1984,) was a "silly" font.

 

[Cory Bauer]

And looking at a Watch during a meeting is disrespectful.

"In all the time we've been talking, he's never once looked at his phone."

Here's my problem though. When I'm interacting with someone, I'm far less offended by someone glancing at their phone than I am if they're constantly glancing at their watch, as if they can't wait to be done with me. Both are bothersome, but glancing at their watch feels more offensive to me.

I think because historically, a phone glance is in response to someone outside butting-in to your conversation. The outsider is the one being 'rude' so to speak (not that they know it). The glancer is just responding to an outside event like anyone would. Forgivable.

A watch-glance, OTOH, is instigated by the person standing right in front of you. They're sort-of telling you they'd rather be somewhere else. Rude

But isn't a watch-glance currently rude because, oh I don't know, the only possible thing a traditional watch could be telling them is what time it is?

When your watch is no longer a single-purpose device, its no more rude to glance at than a phone.

----------

I have that amazing ability too -- and I don't have an Apple Watch. It's called self-discipline.

Actually, it's called having respect for others.

I think it entirely depends on the situation. If you're in a personal situation where nothing is more important that it couldn't wait until later, then yes having the discipline to avoid your phone (or soon watch) is a good thing. And of course both have "do not disturb" features.

But on the other hand, if you're just standing around the water cooler ********ting with your coworkers and another employee requires your attention, then I would argue that ignoring your phone/watch is being disrespectful to the person that needs you.

There's people who don't respond to their emails, don't pick up their phone, are constantly late for meetings, etc - and that to me is disrespectful to other people's time.

 

[ttss6]

Though it's not meant for everyone, like any of their other products, it's amazing how much thought and time was spent in making this. 8 more days!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I wouldn't say the iPad was very easy to recognize as a gamechanger. It was a big, less communication capable iphone, with a size which makes it more useful for some tasks.

I guess we'll disagree there. iPhone screen was too small, netbooks were selling pretty well as portable, mostly-consumption computers, etc. Enter iPad which made some things (reading a book or magazine, some website browsing, watching video, etc) that were hard to do well (or a tangibly lessor experience) on a 3.5" and 4" screen much more doable at 9.7". Combine the two and content consumers with light computing needs could reasonably think iPhone + iPad for most of their needs.

Yes, iPad was a big iPod Touch in most ways but the "big" was the tangible difference, and it brought useful benefits that the masses could appreciate. "Want to watch a movie on the go" does not seem equivalent to "want to watch my heartbeat" in terms of recurring utility. I don't think the masses that could see the utility in iPhone + iPad (instead of iPod and laptops/desktops) can see comparable utility in iPhone + Watch (only in iPhone + iPad + Watch, and if that, why Watch?).

To put it another way, I guess I'm looking at this Watch as another iterative variation of iPod + iPhone + iPad too much. As you imply, it looks like a smaller iDevice you can wear on an arm. We already had that too with iPod Nanos and they were not "gamechangers" in terms of iPhone and iPad sales volumes with the masses. Looking at Watch vs. the rumored iCar or maybe even the rumored new Apple TV and (for me anyway) it's much easier to see the potential (masses appeal) of iCar or new Apple TV vs. this Watch. Again (to me anyway), this Watch looks niche, something for a subset of iPhone owners rather than a "gamechanger" on the same level as iPod, iPhone and iPad as suggested in this article.

Will it sell well? Sure. Lots of people will buy anything new from Apple. Will it sell like the big 3 just referenced? I don't know but I'm doubtful. On the other hand, the seemingly far more fanciful rumor of an iCar seems much easier to imagine appealing to the masses on a big scale, as does (IMO) an Apple TV with a cableTV replacement "new model". The masses very tangibly need better cars and better television. Do they need a better watch? We'll see soon enough.

 

[wilhelmer]

I spend most of my iPhone time with texting, reading news, and gaming. How's that going to change with the Apple Watch? Glancing at notifications takes such a small fraction of my "smartphone time" per day that it's not worth having an extra device for it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I think that its wrong to look at things from a general consumer perspective. My parents, for example own iphones and they and a lot of older people never even bother downloading any 3rd party apps.

I can buy what you are saying here. However, this article (at the top of this thread) suggests that Apple sees this Watch as a "gamechanger" on par with iPod, iPhone and iPad. Gamechanger is not defined but how I would define it would be as far reaching with comparable sales to as many buyers. That's where I'm having doubts.

The many buyers of iPods, iPhones and iPads are not the niche of people here at MacRumors or even people that might be called Apple fans but the masses... perhaps your own parents are in that group. It has taken of a lot of them buying to build that "gamechanger" perception around iPod, then iPhone and then iPad. So, for this Watch to be a gamechanger, I'm suggesting the most important buyers are those very same kinds of people- the "general consumers" that are not Apple fans or people posting here.

Why do they want to buy this Watch? If you substitute the other iDevices (in place of "Watch" in that question) when they were new, the answers to the question were easy. Who didn't want a pocketable walkman that could store 1,000 of your favorite songs? Who didn't want an iPod that was also a cell phone and a web browser in one small package that fit in your pocket? Who didn't want a bigger-screen iDevice for watching videos, modest computing, reading books & magazines, etc (stuff hard to do on a 3.5" or later 4" screen)? Those "general consumers" could easily see the utility of each iDevice without having to be under Apple's spell or hanging out at fan sites, etc.

Now look at the question again: why do they want to buy this watch? The answers "we" fans are trying to sling seem relatively weak, mostly revolving around various difficulties of having to pull the iPhone out of pocket (often in odd, atypical scenarios we cook up where it genuinely would be a little more difficult to pull out that phone). We're trying so hard to rationalize this new Apple product but we're still struggling to come up with much more than convenience rationale... which is VERY unlike it was ahead of iPod, iPhone and iPad. A little more convenience did not move the masses to buy those products; buyers had much more tangible reasons for wanting to buy each.

Maybe the masses are shifting into fashionistas? Maybe the masses are so influenced by relatively fine details of what models are wearing on magazine covers that the subtlety of one of those things being an Apple watch will move those masses to want to buy one too (but not the red heart-shaped glasses or the 2 dresses on this cover)? Maybe the masses are this " more affluent" crowd referenced in this article... or becoming this more affluent crowd and thus are primed for showing their affluence by jumping on this new product? Or maybe it will sell very well to a segment of iPhone owners but not quite live up to the "gamechanger" tag if that is based upon the impacts of iPod, iPhone and iPad? Niche like carplay or TV as it has been to date.

Personally, I think it will sell very well but not nearly as good as those other 3 products. I think the next "gamechanger" from Apple is either finally getting TV right or this rumored iCar.

 

[Taz Mangus]

Wow, so much work went into such a pointless product!

Of course it is pointless for YOU.

 

[Camusrieux]

Darryl, you keep talking about "the masses" this and "the masses" that. Given that—I take it—you have not in fact been performing actual market research in search of consumer preferences for this platform, could you perhaps explain what analysis you are performing that leads you to your conclusions of what "the masses" do and don't want and what "the masses" do and don't understand? It would appear from your comments that the functional definition of "the masses" is "people who see things like Darryl except usually somewhat poorer and perhaps a little dumber." The possibility that actual "masses" (or just actual potential Watch buyers) are people who understand better than you do the value a well-executed smartwatch has for them does not seem to figure prominently in your thought process.

Given Apple's recent record in its forays into evaluating its consumer base and designing and marketing products that that consumer base is interested in purchasing, one might of course wonder whether it makes more sense to bet on Apple's evaluation on this score, or to bet on the contrary perspective of Guy On Internet Named Darryl. (To which your rebuttal appears to be "But I could tell all along that the iPod and iPhone and iPad would do great business!" Which seems to me to be a far less convincing riposte than you think it is.) But never mind that.

I'd like to propose for your consideration the possibility that your failure to see value in the publicized (to say nothing of the non-publicized and, in the case of third-party apps, perhaps not even yet conceived) functions of the Apple Watch might in fact be a product of (a) the limitations of your personal vision and understanding, rather than the limitations of (b) the Watch and/or (c) Apple's product design and market research (which, to reiterate, are on somewhat of a hot streak over the past 15 years or so).

Most specifically, as the owner of a smartwatch myself (the original Kickstarter Pebble), I can assure you that the ability to receive notifications and other smartphone functions on one's wrist is a feature of considerable value. In light of the mediocre design (both hardware and software) and build quality of the Pebble, that particular product doesn't amount to much more of an AWatch proof-of-concept, but I assure you that—whether you grasp it or not—it's a hell of a concept. (Subsequent Pebble models and now the various Android Wear options appear to have improved on that Gen-1 product, and it certainly appears to me that the AWatch is yet another step forward from those, just as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were from their respective competition.)

Lines like this one, for example, are just drowning in hindsight bias and inability to see past your own nose:

Yes, iPad was a big iPod Touch in most ways but the "big" was the tangible difference, and it brought useful benefits that the masses could appreciate.

One might note—though you don't—that "on your wrist" is both a "tangible difference" and one that "br[ings] useful benefits[.]" (Then, the cloying "masses" bit is dubious and ugly for the reasons noted above.)

Anyway: Given the degree to which your analysis is burdened by your fundamental incomprehension of why smartwatches appeal to people, I'd like to suggest that you take somewhat more seriously the possibility that consumers will value this product for reasons that you—despite your allegedly sterling record of knowing-all-along that the iDevices would be smash hits—simply fail to grasp.

There's no shame in (as would seem to be a real possibility) being less attuned to the market for technology products than Apple is. You're a member of a very, very large club in that respect. (I for one have never understood the appeal of laptops, such as the MacBook Air and now the new MacBook, that sacrifice a significant level of performance in order to cut weight from what was already (IMO) a very sufficiently light computer. I simply don't get it; why buy a pokey 3-pound computer when a vastly more capable one only weighs 4 1/2 pounds?!? Nevertheless, the Air sells like hotcakes. Shows what I know—which is precisely the point.)

 

[Cory Bauer]

I spend most of my iPhone time with texting, reading news, and gaming. How's that going to change with the Apple Watch? Glancing at notifications takes such a small fraction of my "smartphone time" per day that it's not worth having an extra device for it.

If currently your iPhone never leaves your hands, then the fitness features of the Watch are all it really has to offer you - unless you'd like to spend less time with your phone in your hands.

On the other hand (no pun intended), I think the watch is a great fit for people who have become notification junkies - and I think a lot of us fall into that category. A 2013 study showed the average person checks their phone 150 times per day; in an 18-hour waking day that's once every seven minutes. Since the Watch handles notifications with a tap of the wrist, instead of constantly checking our phones to see if we have a notification, we can be alerted by the watch only when we have a notification.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Darryl, you keep talking about "the masses" this and "the masses" that...

First, this is a website where people post their opinions and I have clearly threaded mine with plenty of "Personally", "IMO" and so on.

Second, I am in the market research business and am usually quick to to jump on those- as you are doing with me here- who try to extrapolate personal opinions to being the opinions of the masses. I'm not trying to do that- you don't find any such claims on my part and again, see "first" above.

Third, good for you, basically doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing because you find great value in notifications on your Pebble watch. Have you surveyed the market to know that you are not the anomaly... that the masses will or will not also find great value as you do? Or is this a pot calling a kettle rebuttal?

Personally- and again this is my opinion- I'm not seeing the Watch to be a "gamechanger" on par with iPod, iPhone and iPad as suggested in the article that kicks off this thread. That doesn't mean I see it as a flop or anyone- you included- would be stupid to buy one. It just means I disagree with the suggestion that the big 3 "gamechangers" will be viewed as a "big 4" in a few years where #4 will be this Watch. My opinion is that it will be a niche success, like I see other Apple products like TV and Carplay.

Can I be wrong about that? Of course I can and that's why my posts have plenty of "Personally" and "IMO" and so on. Your guess about the potential of this thing is probably at least as good as mine. But that also means that my guess is no more wrong than yours until we both see how this plays out.

Feel free to mark this thread and call me out in 2 or 3 years if the Watch turns out to be an iDevice-like "gamechanger" on par with those other 3. Personally, I don't care much about being right or wrong on this topic- just adding to this conversation. But for now, there's as much potential for my speculation to play out as your own. The masses- however you or I would like to define them- will vote with their dollars if this Watch is another iPhone or iPad "gamechanger" or more of an TV or Carplay... or iPod Socks. I'll hope for the former but my own gut guess is something more toward the latter.

 

[bawbac]

Let's keep in mind that activity bands have batteries that last days, up to 5 on some whereas the Apple Watch will require charging nightly/daily in most cases.
That right there means no sleep tracking for the Apple Watch, which is sad since almost all activity trackers, even those that cost $50 can track your sleep & do other things for DAYS on a single charge.

The Apple Watch is like HD.
How long did it take for HD to catch on and has Blu-ray taken over DVD...No.

 

[laurim]

Yeah, I like the cloisonné sort-of effect. It's well done.

Not a big fan of an electronic device awarding me a "badge", however. Are you supposed to show these off to others? Seems a bit silly.

It may seem silly but it motivates people. I have been doing the Elevate app to train my brain and working to get my progress in, say, Math to "expert" on their scale makes me do more exercises than I probably would otherwise. Even though absolutely nothing happens to me once I get to Expert. Gold stars in various forms have been motivating people forever.

----------

Let's keep in mind that activity bands have batteries that last days, up to 5 on some whereas the Apple Watch will require charging nightly/daily in most cases.
That right there means no sleep tracking for the Apple Watch, which is sad since almost all activity trackers, even those that cost $50 can track your sleep & do other things for DAYS on a single charge.

The Apple Watch is like HD.
How long did it take for HD to catch on and has Blu-ray taken over DVD...No.

BluRay didn't take over the dvd because digital delivery jumped right over it and made BluRay unnecessary except for the very particular viewer and people who can watch 3D movies in their home (the only reason I own BluRays).

Those other devices do things for days on a charge because they only do a few simple things in a very simple way. More utility and beauty are the tradeoff for battery life. If you REALLY need sleep tracking (how many people really do this?), charge your watch while you are awake at home. Or use your sleep tracker at night and the watch during the day. You don't have to give up one for the other. I still own pens and paper even though I have five computers and two printers.

 

[jeffdingesfilms]

Is it "more personal" because we strap it on?

Yes

There's been strap-ons bands for iPhones and iPods for many years. Some of us buy them but it doesn't seem to be a mainstream thing.

This is quite a bit more than a "strap on band". This is a multitouch, multigesture, TALKING, LISTENING, BUZZING, APP CUSTOMIZABLE machine that is snuggly strapped onto your being.

The first EVER device that is permanently (except for charging), attached to you and available to you with the switch of a wrist, INSTANTLY, while riding your bike, driving, hiking, etc.

 

[bawbac]

Those other devices do things for days on a charge because they only do a few simple things in a very simple way. More utility and beauty are the tradeoff for battery life. If you REALLY need sleep tracking (how many people really do this?), charge your watch while you are awake at home.

Simple thing?
LOL !

The Apple Watch issue is the large screen that eats battery life.
Those activity bands may not have a large screen but don't let that fool you on the technology features it has to offer.

Also, most of these activity bands can now get notifications from the phone so why would anyone who already has bought in to the "watch" concept that purchased an activity band even want an Apple Watch.

It seems Apple is hoping their manipulative advertising scheme will sell products even if you don't need them.

 

[Keirasplace]

It may seem silly but it motivates people. I have been doing the Elevate app to train my brain and working to get my progress in, say, Math to "expert" on their scale makes me do more exercises than I probably would otherwise. Even though absolutely nothing happens to me once I get to Expert. Gold stars in various forms have been motivating people forever.

----------



BluRay didn't take over the dvd because digital delivery jumped right over it and made BluRay unnecessary except for the very particular viewer and people who can watch 3D movies in their home (the only reason I own BluRays).

Those other devices do things for days because they only do a few simple things. More utility is the tradeoff for battery life. If you REALLY need sleep tracking (how many people really do this?), charge your watch while you are awake at home.

Its "jumped" over it because most people either have crappy TV's (many LCD have poor color reproduction, black levels and movement reproduction) or don't care about quality all that much beyond what DVD offers. They mostly watch streams, or low bit rate HD movies on their computer that lets face it are not anywhere near blue ray quality. On a smaller screen though, the limitations are less perceptible.


Even when you compare the best streaming service's latest offer, it still isn't up to par with blue ray. A few years ago, the difference was immense. So, streaming has never been equivalent quality and that's not why people chose it.
http://hdguru.com/blu-ray-vs-hdtv-streaming-services-a-quality-comparison-review/

Considering how long Blue Ray has existed before even decent quality HD content existed; your argument as to why it wasn't adopted in drove doesn't fit the facts. It is convenience and the fact that DVD was good enough for them, that won over pure image quality of blue ray. They didn't switch to blue ray because they already had a DVD, and since they didn't care about quality that much, their later switch to streaming because it was more convenient fits their pattern.

 

[laurim]

Its "jumped" over it because most people either have crappy TV's (many LCD have poor color reproduction, black levels and movement reproduction) or don't care about quality all that much beyond what DVD offers. They mostly watch streams on their computer that lets face it are not anywhere near blue ray quality.

It is convenience that won over pure image quality, simple as that.

Even when you compare the best streaming service's latest offer, it still isn't up to par with blue ray.
http://hdguru.com/blu-ray-vs-hdtv-streaming-services-a-quality-comparison-review/

Like I said, people who are picky with their viewing experience still choose BluRay. But most people are fine with digital streaming and that's why it has basically made dvd and BluRay outdated. Maybe I'm unique but I never look at the BluRays I DO own because I'm just not into watching any movie over and over again (ok, I do if I stumble across a really good movie on tv but I generally don't seek them out to watch them again). I bought my favorites in case I ever do want to watch them again but I haven't watched them again since the day they arrived from Amazon. They gather dust on my credenza.

----------

Simple thing?
LOL !

The Apple Watch issue is the large screen that eats battery life.
Those activity bands may not have a large screen but don't let that fool you on the technology features it has to offer.

Also, most of these activity bands can now get notifications from the phone so why would anyone who already has bought in to the "watch" concept that purchased an activity band even want an Apple Watch.

It seems Apple is hoping their manipulative advertising scheme will sell products even if you don't need them.

The larger screen is necessary for the utilities it provides. Still, the AppleWatch screen isn't as big as the Android smart watches.

Not everyone is interested in the activity monitoring aspects of the watch. It's very low on my list.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

OK but to illustrate the point I was making...

Yes, This is quite a bit more than a "strap on band". This is a multitouch,

iPhone

multigesture,

iPhone

TALKING,

iPhone

LISTENING,

iPhone

BUZZING,

iPhone

APP CUSTOMIZABLE machine

iPhone

that is snuggly strapped onto your being. The first EVER device that is permanently (except for charging), attached to you and available to you with the switch of a wrist,

I guess this is the relatively unique stuff, though "in your pocket" seems pretty close to "strapped to an arm," etc. (and there are straps for iPhone if one wants to strap it on themselves).

INSTANTLY,

iPhone

while riding your bike,

iPhone

driving,

iPhone

hiking,

iPhone

All that said, Watch does have some unique sensors not on the iPhone. It will be somewhat more conveniently available than having to pull a phone out of one's pocket. If "seconds is money" to some people, it will be a faster screen to see than pulling a phone of out one's pocket. It has a UI and app functions that are different (but we don't know if it's better) than the iPhone. It is lighter weight than iPhone (but that might be nullified by having to have the iPhone with you too). It will bring Apple Pay to iPhones that don't have it already on board. It may score some cool points for the earliest adopters.

 

[Keirasplace]

If currently your iPhone never leaves your hands, then the fitness features of the Watch are all it really has to offer you - unless you'd like to spend less time with your phone in your hands.

On the other hand (no pun intended), I think the watch is a great fit for people who have become notification junkies - and I think a lot of us fall into that category. A 2013 study showed the average person checks their phone 150 times per day; in an 18-hour waking day that's once every seven minutes. Since the Watch handles notifications with a tap of the wrist, instead of constantly checking our phones to see if we have a notification, we can be alerted by the watch only when we have a notification.

It can connect with your Iphone over the same WIFI network (when its closer, directly with BT LE), so it has a lot more use than that at home. You don't even need to carry your phone around in or around your house at all (or in a hotel, a gym, a boat, the beach, etc) as long as both the phone and the watch are on the same WIFI net.

You can use it to play music/apple pay without the phone. Those are not a fitness feature. Later this year, Apple hinted they'll open up the watch to native apps, then you could use it for whatever the dev put on it.