Chairman Wheeler:

No one, whether government or corporate, should control free and open access to the Internet. The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules.

John Gruber:

Further, I don’t think any of the stainless steel bands will be available for retail purchase. They’ll sell sport bands, which you’ll be able to use on any Apple Watch, but I don’t think any of the nicer bands will be available for retail purchase. Don’t hold your breath for a space black Link Bracelet to put on your $349 Sport model. The nicer bands aren’t accessories that Apple hopes you’ll tack onto your purchase; they’re signifiers of how much you paid for your stainless steel or gold Apple Watch. [emphasis mine]

Agree. This reminds me of how Rolex has two bracelets for their timepieces — Jubilee and President. Because Rolexes can come in three very similar-looking metals — stainless steel, white gold, and platinum — Rolex offers the President bracelet for only white gold and platinum. So when you see a Rolex with a President band, you'll know the wearer paid for more than a stainless steel Rolex.

It's great to see a smartwatch-maker finally thinking fashion-first, not technology-first.

This is exactly what I envision Apple will do with the iPhone. The iPhone matures enough to replace your PC and then you just wirelessly sling the interface to a variety of "dumb screens," whether it be a tablet-sized screen, a laptop-sized screen with a keyboard, a desktop monitor with keyboard & mouse, a TV, or even a car center console.

Then years down the line, the Apple Watch — or another computing device that is always on you — replaces the iPhone as the centerpiece of your digital life.

As for this Neptune Duo? It demos really well but A) it's too masculine-geeky for mainstream, and B) it'll be severals years until the technology is good & cheap enough to make this idea into something more meaningful.

Ben Thompson:

Apple is on the verge of leaving the narrowly-defined smartphone market behind entirely, instead making a play to be involved in every aspect of its consumers’ lives. And, if the importance of an integrated experience matter more with your phone than your PC, because you use it more, how much more important is an integrated experience that touches every detail of your life?

In fact, if there is a flaw in this vision, it’s that even pulling an iPhone from your pocket is too cumbersome. What if you could interact with your home, your car, retail, the cloud, or even your own body with something even more personal and accessible?

Phase I — Build a killer product that people will love.

Phase II — Build a killer software ecosystem around it.

Phase III — Build a killer hardware ecosystem around it.

Phase IV — Build your next killer product that will eventually succeed your current killer product.

This is the perfect way to visualize the current smartphone landscape. While Apple has "only 20%," it completely dominates the premium end. Android dominates the rest of the current installed base (mostly the mid-range). The low-end market is all up for grabs.

Ben Bajarin brings up the important questions for Android going forward:

Google has a base of rapidly maturing customers (just over a billion of them) who will continue to expect innovation around the platform in areas they consider valuable. Areas around cloud, imaging, sensors, and so much more. Android’s current user base is increasing in their sophistication. As computing advances, so should Android for this customer set. Yet, in this next phase, Google is going to also want Android to appeal to a first time smartphone user, say a farmer in Africa, for example. So the question is, how does Google evolve Android to cater to both their most sophisticated, demanding, and profitable existing customers, and a first time customer in Africa who is absolutely not PC literate and may not be literate at all? This creates a fundamental problem at a platform level and at a business model level, for Google. This is why I say we can’t make assumptions about which platform will win with the next two billion. The user base in question is using feature phones today. They make calls and have type literacy around 10 key and or radio/TV dials. This is the extent of their technical literacy with electronics. It is in addressing this next phase of mobile where I believe the Android schism happens.

Could it be an Android fork like Cyanogen has the most potential in this next phase? Could it be Windows Phone has an opportunity? Or maybe a web platform version like FireFox OS, that simplifies everything to web apps? Or perhaps Google figures it out, or comes up with something completely different than Android to address this new set of customers. The point is, we have no idea. It is a green field. It is uncharted territory for computing.

AppleInsider explains Apple's recent patent application:

For example, if a user needed to visit the Department of Motor Vehicles, Apple's technology could determine which office has the shortest lines at any given time, and advise the user to visit that location.

In the event that the location cannot be changed, such as when the user has a flight scheduled, Apple's system could alert the user with reminders and give them a suggested time to arrive at the airport. Doing so would allow users accommodate for heavy traffic and help ensure that they arrive at their gate on time.

Apple's system would measure traffic by tracking data from a user's iPhone, measuring their movement over time. Those movements would be used to determine how long it takes for people to move through a specific location, estimating how long the lines might be at that particular spot.

"The server can determine how long mobile devices (and their users) loiter around locations of interest or remain in a queue," the filing reads. "For example, the server can analyze the indoor traffic information to determine how long (e.g., on average) mobile devices have to wait near a cash register location."

There is much more that can be done with indoor mapping than just mapping out shopping malls and having nearby stores push promos to your phone.

Apple may never catch up with Google Maps for outdoor mapping, so now, as I've said before, Apple wants to be the Google Maps (and Waze) for indoor venues.

John Gruber:

The conventional wisdom just two years ago was that Apple needed to create a low-priced iPhone — not just lower-priced but low-priced — to compete in “emerging markets” like China. That would be true if Apple were interested primarily in market share. But they’re not, never have been, and never will be interested primarily in unit sale market share. Far from hurting them, Apple’s commitment to the premium end of the phone market is helping them separate from the pack in China.

When talking about Apple's market share, there's a big difference between saying "only 20%" and "the top 20%."

Ben Thompson, emphasis mine:

The old hoary chestnut that “Apple only wins because its advertising tricks people into paying too much” was raised in my Twitter feed last night, and while the holders of such an opinion are implicitly saying others are stupid, my take runs in the opposite direction: it’s not that people are irrational, it’s that human rationality is about more than what can be reduced to a number. Delight is a real thing, as is annoyance; not feeling stupid is worth so much more than theoretical capability. Knowing there is someone you can ask for help is just as important as never needing help in the first place.

Apple spends an inordinate amount of time and resources on exactly these aspects of their products. Everything is considered, from the purchase to the unboxing to the way a webpage scrolls. Things are locked down and sandboxed, to the consternation of many geeks, but to the relief of someone who has long been conditioned to never install anything for fear of bad actors. Stores – with free support – are just a few miles away (at least in the US), a comfort blanket that you ideally never need. All of this is valuable, even though much of it is priceless, only glimpsed in an average selling price nearly triple the industry average.

Nailed it.

Marketing and having a strong brand will only get people in the door and maybe buy your product once; but it's good user experience that keeps people loyal. You can buy sales with a fat marketing budget, but you cannot buy customer loyalty.

Definitely check out the rest of his piece articulating the two other bad assumptions that people make about Apple.

Kit Eaton:

Fans are happy because 19 hours of “mixed” use, with the watch mainly on standby and in typical-to-heavy use for only about 2.5 to 3.5 hours a day is actually quite generous—it means a nightly charge during a typical 8-hours of bed time is going to be more than enough. [...]

19 hours sounds very reasonable. Picture yourself looking at and interacting with your watch for 2–3 seconds at a time as you read notifications, with the occasional 10–20 seconds used to respond to something like a tweet or text message. Add in less frequent longer interactions lasting a few minutes (like making a phone call or playing a game—even though we don’t know exactly how much game play Apple will ultimately allow in watch apps) and then that 3-hour “heavy” use window looks quite generous. You wouldn’t want to stare at such a small screen for much longer each day anyway.

I've written before how the Apple Watch's battery life is a top priority. I still believe it is, but it will take a few generations before it'll be what Apple really wants it to be.

Until then, as Kit speculates, maybe 19 hours of "mixed usage" won't be that bad. I can relate to Kit's assertion that we won't be actively fiddling with our smart watches for long periods of time. As a Pebble owner, I've played with a few Pebble apps and found I fucking can't stand holding my wrist up to my face longer than 5 seconds at a time. In those longer-than-5-seconds situations, whipping out my smartphone is just way more practical.

That said, I'm curious to see how apps will mature on smartwatches. Taking a smartphone app and shrinking it down to wrist-size is not going to cut it. App developers will really have to embrace the idea of glanceable and passive user interfaces if they want to make something revolutionary.

David Chartier:

It's far too difficult to find sustainable plugins with the features I need, and even when I do, they were most likely abandoned at least five months ago because the developer got an actual job or understandably grew tired of entitled freeloaders demanding features without offering any kind of financial support to keep the project alive.