Very unlikely. The reason Garmin watches are successful is because they've carved out an audience (athletes, health and exercise focused). Pebble might have a nice UI but most people would be better off with an Apple Watch or whatever the current flavour of the week is on Android
I think a lot of people bought AWs because they seemed like the right thing to get, integrated easily, and were more or less easy to use.
But most people I know who have AWs don't use most of the functionalities they provide. If you went up to 20 random AW wearers and ask them if they would give up a bunch of features they don't use (like the awful Siri assistant) in exchange for 15-30x the battery life, I think a lot of them would say yes.
Add onto that the fact that Pebbles are cheaper than AWs, and I think we're going to see a non-trivial number of people "upgrading" from AWs to Pebbles when the batteries start to degrade.
Ironically, I just talked to all my mates about our Apple Watches, and universally Siri on your wrist for setting timers and replying to messages with voice, completely hands free, was the killer app that everyone agreed on.
Setting a timer is as simple as bringing your wrist to your face and saying the amount of time.
I literally only use Siri on my Apple Watch, I’ve only triggered it accidentally on my iPhone and have the hot word disabled on all my other devices. Of course, all I ever use it for is setting timers and alarms on the watch, but still…
You're overestimating people's willingness to write code even if they don't have to do it. Most people just don't want to do it even if AI made is easy to do so. Not sure who you're talking to but most people I know that aren't programmers have zero interest in writing their own software even if they could do it using prompts only.
This has been the argument since day one. You just have to try the latest model, that's where you went wrong. For the record I use Claude Code quite a bit and I can't see much meaningful improvements from the last few models. It is a useful tool but it's shortcomings are very obvious.
I break everything down into very small tasks. Always ask it to plan how it will do it. Make sure to review the plan and spot mistakes. Then only ask it to do one step at a time so you can control the whole process. This workflow works well enough as long as you're not trying to do anything too interesting. Anything which is even a little bit unique it fails to do very well.
sounds like you're doing all the actual work. why not just type the code as you figure out how to break down the problem? you're going to have to review the output anyway.
It's useful to have the small functions all written.
I program mostly in VBA these days (a little problematic as is a dead leanguage since 2006 and even then it was niche) and I have never recived a correct high level ""main"" sub but the AIs are pretty good at doing small subs I then organize.
And yes, telling me where I make errors, they are pretty good at that
At the end of the day I want reliability and there is no way I can't do what without full review.
The funny thing is that they try to use the """best practices""" of coding where you would reasonably want to NOT have them.
reply