Todoist App for Apple Watch Will Bring To-Do Lists to Your Wrist

[s1m]

Because it's not true. The job of your Watch most likely will be a fancy new gadget to play with for a while. It is basically entertainment and fashion. But if the job to be done is to actually manage a To-Do list, there are better alternatives. Nothing beats paper and pencil.

That is your opinion rather than fact. It is true it will complement my iPhone. I get a lot of notifications often in situations that I don't want to grab out the iPhone. The Apple will simplify this.

I often miss calls in shoppping centres as the background noise is too much and the Watch will be a better notification system.

Also I play most of my music on shuffle - phone in the pocket all of the time. With the watch I can control the music.

It may not be the best todo list manager but it will do its job and a bunch of others. A pencil and paper are pretty useless at notifying me of a meeting location.

 

[Abazigal]

Does it include the reminder to charge the watch at the end of the day by default? LOL.

Well, nothing is stopping you from setting such a reminder for yourself that repeats itself every night...

 

[G4er?]

I was with my 22 year old daughter last evening at an appreciation dinner. Here is someone that grew up with technology. Has iPhone, Macbook Pro, tablet.
She thinks of something she needs to remember to do today.
So does she grab her iPhone and write a note?

No. She takes out a pen and grabs the paper napkin and writes a note.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Since 2012: Horace Dediu – Asymmetric Competition

Economists call it job-to-be-done theory, not problem-to-be-solved theory, but the idea is the same....Since you need an iPhone to operate the Watch, all your To-Do list needs are already covered. And the iPhone even has GPS and location based reminders, it has wireless connectivity and is all in all a way better solution to not forget things.

Hey look, I'm glad you are having fun in B-school and want to show off your newly found knowledge. But it didn't really answer my question of "since when does a product have to solve a problem...."

And I disagree with your analysis. The fact the information is on your iPhone doesn't mean it would be more convenient to retrieve that information on a watch without having to fumble in a pocket to grab the phone then unlock it then get the information. It's not a problem that needs solving, but just something that has the potential to increase productivity -- just as the home computer did. When the home computer came out most consumer asked "why do I need that?" But that was because they didn't understand it, just as most who dismiss the Apple Watch don't really understand it's potential or, more importantly, want to.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Notifications had zero to do with the contempt lavished on Glass. Glass was DOA because:

1. People who don't need to wear glasses don't find wearing them appealing ("Men don't make passes ..."). There's a reason contact lenses and Lasik are so popular.
2. Wearing a head-mounted camera in social situations is disarming, invasive, or even offensive to those on the other side of the lens.

Sorry, even Apple's street cred couldn't have saved Glass.

Mostly missed the point. I was saying "WHAT IF it had been Apple Glass?" If it had, you wouldn't have posted your 2 pieces of rationale OR, if you had, 10 guys would have ripped into you why you are completely wrong. If you persisted, you would be called a troll, lectured on the meaning of true innovation and discounted with "99.9% want", the Ford quote about faster horses and various quotes about how right Apple is based on the amount of cash they have in the bank or the latest quarter's record revenues.

And to point #1, there's an abundance of people- even here- that are claiming they don't wear watches... that there is no need to wear a watch when they have the time and just about all watch functionality in the phone they have to have with them anyway.

To point #2, having a smart phone with cameras on both sides seems at least in the ball park of being "disarming, invasive or even offensive to those (same people) on the other side of the lense(s)."

But "we" find no fault with iPhone cameras and "we" are evolving "our" thinking about wearing watches as part of rationalizing why "we" may buy this one from Apple.

 

[rohitp]

I'm not purchasing one, but you have to understand that there is something for everyone and thank goodness the world doesn't share your same attitude or we would have nothing.

What part of "I" did you not understand? Never claimed I was speaking for anyone else.

 

[Gameboy70]

Mostly missed the point. I was saying "WHAT IF it had been Apple Glass?"

You missed my last sentence: "Sorry, even Apple's street cred couldn't have saved Glass." There wouldn't have been any more apologists for Apple Glass than there were for MobileMe.

 

[Gameboy70]

And to point #1, there's an abundance of people- even here- that are claiming they don't wear watches... that there is no need to wear a watch when they have the time and just about all watch functionality in the phone they have to have with them anyway.

That's an objection over utility, not aesthetics. Many people refuse to wear watches, but not on the grounds that watches make them less attractive. That so many people with poor eyesight resort to the inconvenience of contact lenses or the invasiveness of eye surgery suggests that the objection to glasses is somewhat more profound.

To point #2, having a smart phone with cameras on both sides seems at least in the ball park of being "disarming, invasive or even offensive to those (same people) on the other side of the lense(s)."

That's true in the case of users who keep theirs phone on neck lanyards, but otherwise, no. Line-of-sight matters.