 |
|
|
|||||
Ever since it became obvious that the iPhone was one of the most transformative consumer products in history, a question has been floating out there: Would its impact ever be matched by a device in an even newer category? And if something pulled it off, what would it be? After a decade and a halfso farwe arent any closer to getting answers. Yes, Apple has had its monster hits since then, especially the iPad, AirPods, and Apple Watch. But they havent been iPhone-size landmarks. Meta and others have poured billions into headsets and glasses with the explicit goal of replacing smartphones; still no iPhone. Imran Chaudhri and Bethany Bongiornoveterans of the iPhonetried to leap to the next level with their startup Humanes AI Pin, flopped, and recently off-loaded the remains to HP. I cant help feeling, though, that the most promising territory for the next great device is right there in front of us. Its our wrists, a location weve found handy for gadgets since the 19th century. Smartwatches demand no fundamental changes in human behavior to become part of our lives. By contrast, the AI Pinwhich you wore affixed to clothing, with your palm serving as the screen for its laser-projected interfacewas a failed bet on an altogether new experience. The fact that even the Apple Watch is merely an enormous success rather than an epoch-shifter doesnt mean the opportunity to create a radically new smartwatch is lost. After all, Apple didnt invent the smartphone. Contenders such as the BlackBerry and Palm Treo already existed. They were popular, even. Its just that the iPhone sprinted right past them into a new era of computing. It even surpassed fantasies about what an Apple smartphone might be like. (In 2009, I wrote about what most pundits had been expecting: pretty much an iPod that could make phone calls.) So as much as I cherish my Apple Watch, Id love to see a watch come along that makes it look like a BlackBerry. A few recent developments have had me thinking about that possibilityand, especially, the obstacles preventing it from happening. First, theres the future of the Apple Watch itself. Last week, Bloombergs Mark Gurman reported that Apple is investigating building cameras into its watchesnot for snapshot-taking or FaceTime calls, but to enable the companys Visual Intelligence AI. In theory, a camera-equipped Apple Watch could offer all sorts of new features based on it seeing the world around you, from better walking directions to nutritional information about food youre about to eat. It might have a shot at fulfilling some of the AI Pins utterly unfulfilled ambitions to weave AI into everyday life. Given Apples unsteady footing in AI (as exemplified by its ongoing failure to ship the new and improved Siri it first demonstrated last June) it would be ridiculous to get giddy over the prospect of Visual Intelligence on the Apple Watch. To be even mildly intrigued, you need to buy into Apple getting a lot better at conducting ambitious AI in real time, and doing it on a device greatly constrained by computing power, connectivity, and battery life. Still, it seems likely that someone will build serious AI vision into a smartwatch. One no-brainer candidate: Google, whose Lens AR technology has been useful for years and could become part of a future Pixel Watch. That brings up a fundamental issue with smartwatches, at least for iPhone users, and anyone who covets their business. Its that only Apple has a clear pathway to building an amazing new smartwatch that works with an iPhone. That is by design: The company provides itself with multiple custom affordances for integrating its phone and watch and is unwilling to share them with other manufacturers. For the decade-plus history of the Apple Watch, this fact has stunted the growth of the entire field. Back in 2012, before there was an Apple Watch, Eric Migicovskys Pebble helped create the smartwatch category. Migicovsky sold the company to Fitbit in 2016, ending its original run. Now hes back with a company called Core Devices that, as he told my colleague Jared Newman in February, is building a very slightly modernized version of what Pebble once offered. Its a sign of how slowly smartwatches have evolved that a minor upgrade to the 2016 Pebble actually sounds quite appealing. But in a blog post, Migicovsky wrote that the limitations Apple imposes on third-party smartwatches frustrate even Core Devices modest aspirations. His new smartwatch cant handle notifications as adeptly as an Apple Watch, is shut off from supporting SMS and iMessage, lacks an easy way to integrate with third-party iPhone apps, and cant access the internet if the Pebble app isnt running on the iPhone. The title of Migicovskys postApple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhonesconveys his bottom line, which is that Googles Android is a far friendlier platform than iOS for a company such as Core Devices. Migicovsky published his post on Monday of last week. Coincidentally, the European Commission dinged Apple the following day for the same kind of limitations that raised Migicovskys ire. However, the EC can do more than simply complain. In a ruling based on its Digital Markets Act, it has instructed Apple to make iOS work better with third-party smartwatches and other devices, providing a list of specific fetures (such as notifications) that the company needs to open up by the end of 2025. It also requires Apple to improve its communications with developers integrating products with its platform. As youd imagine, Apple is not looking forward to adjusting its product strategy and technical road map based on a government edict. Todays decisions wrap us in red tape, slowing down Apples ability to innovate for users in Europe and forcing us to give away our new features for free to companies who dont have to play by the same rules, the company grumbled in a statement. Its bad for our products and for our European users. We will continue to work with the European Commission to help them understand our concerns on behalf of our users. Apple hasnt yet explained its objections to the new EC ruling in detail. But it undoubtedly has several that go beyond its disinterest in helping other companies compete with the Apple Watch. For example, giving third parties more access to iMessage will introduce security issues that dont exist with the current closed loop between the iPhone and Apple Watch. Widening the deep iOS access that the Apple Watch enjoys to support other devices could also lead to a less reliable experience. The most likely outcome may resemble Apples compliance with an earlier EC ruling that forced it to enable competitive app stores. In that instance, the company acted grudgingly, making changes only in the EU and without any effort to create a great experience for anyone involved. I do hope theres at least a tiny chance that the ECs ruling leads Apple to make government-mandated lemons into lemonade. It could surprise us all by supporting other manufacturers smartwatches wholeheartedlynot just where its a legal requirement, and not in such a cumbersome fashion as to discourage anyone from taking advantage of it. This much seems certain: If Apple doesnt invent the next great wrist-worn gadget, somebody else will. Its kind of fun to think about that somebody else creating something so compelling that Apple sees welcoming it onto the iPhone as being in its own self-interestor at least a better option than giving iPhone fans any reason to even toy with the idea of switching allegiances. You’ve been reading Plugged In, Fast Company‘s weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company No one I know wouldve been this reckless: Ex-officials slam Trump team’s use of Signal for war planningFormer officials say the Houthi bombing chat reflects a deeper culture of security lapses and ethical blind spots. Read More AI is painful for journalists but healthy for journalismWhile media jobs may shrink, the values at the heart of good reporting could finally be rewardedif we shape the AI ecosystem the right way. Read More The living globe that can help drones fly without GPSMaxar’s detailed digital Earth joins a growing AI push to help robots orient themselves in the face of GPS attacks. Read More Archetype AI is like ChatGPT for the physical worldWhat happens when you feed an AI countless scientific readings? It learns physics, and how the world itself works. Read More TikTok is facing a rare meme drought. Inside the Great Meme Depression of 2025Creators are responding the only way they know howby turning the crisis into content. Read More The age of AI requires a new kind of leadershipRegenerative leadership can be an effective antidote to AI doomerism in the office, says this management expert. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
As return-to-office policies take hold and fully flexible work arrangements decline, employees are re-adapting to in-person interactions. One of the biggest challenges? Giving and receiving constructive feedback. Unlike praise, constructive feedback highlights areas for improvementa critical driver of individual and organizational success, yet one that many find difficult. Whether remote or in-person, various factors, like overestimating negative consequences or fearing relationship fallout, often make both giving and receiving feedback feel high stakes. While virtual feedback has its own challengeslimited nonverbal cues, potential misinterpretation, and technological barriersthe shift back to in-person conversations introduces new complexities. Body language, tone, and the immediacy of face-to-face exchanges add layers of nuance that leaders may feel less practiced in navigating. Now more than ever, leaders and teams must navigate feedback thoughtfully. Heres how to make in-person feedback a tool for growthensuring it strengthens, rather than strains, workplace relationships. Anchor yourself in the right mindset Before giving constructive feedback, get into the right headspace. The goal is to help the other person grownot to vent frustration, prove a point, or put someone in their place. If emotions are running high, step back. Feedback should come from a place of support and a genuine desire to see the other person succeed, which in turn strengthens the team and organization. Stay centered, and make sure your words and tone reflect that intention. Choose the right time and place Giving feedback soon after observing behavior, reviewing work, or having a key interaction keeps it relevant and actionablebut timing and environment matter. In-person conversations offer the potential for richer dialogue, but only if done right. Avoid squeezing feedback into rushed moments, like between back-to-back meetings, where neither party has the focus needed for a meaningful exchange. Choose a time when both people are centered and not overwhelmed. Opt for a neutral space, such as a meeting room rather than your office, to minimize power imbalances, and ensure its free from interruptions to foster an open, productive discussion. Be specific Vague feedback falls flat. Instead of saying, You always interrupt or, Youre not a team player, point to a concrete moment: In yesterdays Ops meeting, you raised your voice several times and spoke over others. After that, the room got quieter. Speak from personal observationwhat you saw, heard, and when it happenedrather than assuming how others felt or making broad character judgments. This keeps feedback clear, actionable, and easier to receive. Get the nonverbal part right Its easy to focus mainly on what youre going to say, but dont forget how you say it, including the part that involves no words at all, which is much more important when you cant hide behind a screen. Tone and body language are thought to make up the vast majority of how communication is received. Speak in an even tone, including about challenging topics. Maintain good eye contact but not in a scary, intense way. Lean forward to communicate engagement and care. Avoid postures that convey defensiveness, like having your arms crossed tightly. Dont fear silence In our always-on world, its tempting to fill every space with words. Instead, try to be comfortable with silence, whether by pausing more frequently as you speak or not pushing for an immediate response from the other person. Silence, even a few seconds, creates time and capacity to become aware of and process emotional responses, contributing to a more genuine interaction that will help both parties understand and support each other. Mind the generational gap Members of different generations may prefer different modes of feedback. Gen Z may want an approach that takes into account their values and sources of meaning (I know collaboration matters to you, so here are some ways I see you doing it well and some areas for improvement), while boomers may be more focused on outcomes and practical advice. Ask for feedbackgenuinely Asking for feedback regularly from your team members models important leadership behavior and promotes an open, growth-oriented, high-performance culture. But it has to be a genuine request, and employees you manage may be reluctant to be honest for fear of retaliation. Be empathetic to that reality. Avoid asking for feedback in the same conversation where youre giving it. It can feel transactional or make the other person hesitant to share openly. If you dont want to hear it, dont ask for it. And remember: How you respond to feedback will determine whether the person feels comfortable providing any feedback in the future. Feedback skill is as much about receiving as giving. Its human nature to react defensively, but try to take a breath and open yourself to what is being communicated, especially if its coming from a place of support. Ask for specifics if theyre not provided. While listening, ask yourself, How might this feedback be true? How does it fit with how I see myself? And remember: Feedback is a gift. It is one of the most impactful experiences that supports growth. Practice, practice, practice Some people may be naturals when it comes to communicating feedback, but most arent. Luckily its a skill that can be improved. Think of feedback-giving as a muscle to strengthen. One way to do that is to start with low-stakes situations (say, giving feedback to a team member after a specific activity like a presentation) and work up to more sensitive areas of improvement like patterns of behavior or communication.
Category:
E-Commerce
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. The controversy around Signalgatetop government officials accidentally including a journalist in their group chat discussing details of a military attack in Yemenhas become the new Trump administrations biggest headache to date. But its also been an unprecedented name-recognition moment for the encrypted-communication app Signal, literally putting it in the top headlines around the world, and turning a national security screwup into a massive branding moment. Is that a good thing for Signal? There are some potential risks and pitfallsand usually having gate appended to your company name isnt exactly a plus. But in this case, the attention appears to be paying off for Signal. For starters, a slew of high-profile media explainers has no doubt introduced the whole idea of encrypted-text apps to plenty of people who never gave the category much thought, but who are now learning about the favorite chat app for spies and journalists, as the Wall Street Journal dubbed it. And many may conclude that if a sizable portion of the presidents cabinet figured the app was private enough to pick over military strike details, its probably private enough for complaining about the boss or gossiping about the neighbors. (After all, the Trump officials cover wasnt blown by hackers or scammers, but by an embarrassing user error.) For everyday Americans, this seems like an inadvertent but strong endorsement of the cybersecurity and privacy value that Signal represents, one secure-messaging advocate told The Intercept, noting that the government has previously criticized such apps as potential tools of terrorists and criminals. Signal promptly shot up app-store download charts; as of Thursday, it was No. 15 on the Apple App Stores free apps ranking, up from 49th early in the week. And according to market intelligence firm Sensor Tower, downloads of the app from March 24 to March 26 were up 105% from the prior week, and 150% from the same period last year. The recent news coverage has also highlighted the differences between Signal and the better-known WhatsApp, a private messenger tool now owned by Meta. (WhatsApp reportedly has more than 2 billion users globally, and Signal has an estimated 40 to 70 million monthly.) Signal is an independent, nonprofit entity, and the app is open source. Plenty of privacy experts prefer Signal because it collects less user data and is, you know, not owned by Meta. Coincidentally, the respective heads of WhatsApp and Signal just recently had a public disagreement, with WhatsApp chief Will Cathcart saying that its security protocols are essentially the same, and Signal president Meredith Whittaker pushing back hard on that claim. Signal is the gold standard in private comms, she said in an X posta statement thats since been widely quoted in SignalGate stories. (Signal did not respond to an inquiry from Fast Company.) That said, one of the risks is that Team Trumpnot generally known for acknowledging blundershas been casting about for a scapegoat. And thats already entailed what seem like veiled attempts to blame Signals UX. In an interview with Fox News, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said he took responsibility for inadvertently inviting the journalist into the chat group, but asked: Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name . . . and then you have somebody else’s number there? He also speculated that the journalist got in the group deliberately or through some other technical means. These head-scratchers seemed to blame some unspecified software glitch or vulnerability, but ended up sounding like a dodge. Still, a second concern is that the extensive criticism of the administration officials involved might rub off on, or imply faults with, Signal itself. (Thats what Trump himself seemed to be doing when he baselessly mused that the app could be defective.) More broadly, those critiques note that such sensitive communication should happen in specially designed secure compartmented information facilities, or SCIFs, which among other things ban cellphones, as theyre vulnerable to hacks. Separately, the groups messages were set to expire, which runs against laws that require archiving of official communications. Big financial institutions operate under similar regulations. But this doesnt necessarily suggest flaws in apps like Signal or WhatsApp; it means additional protocol often rules out off-channel options by default, and that protocol doesnt appear to have been followed. In an X post, Signal addressed what it called misinformation in a government memo interpreted as suggesting vulnerabilities in its app, but actually referring to advanced phishing scams. The post did not address Signalgate or the finger-pointing fallout but seemed clear enough that Signal is eager to defend its reputation and clarify that whatever went wrong here, it wasnt a tech failure. Right now there are a lot of new eyes on Signal, the company wrote. That, at least, is certainly no secret.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||