In all seriousness, do you see any valuable applications of a watch for video surveillance?
No. FWIW, I've seen more requests from customers to have a "proper" tablet version of mobile apps. They're more concerned about functionality on a portable screen that is large enough to be useful. Reviewing video on a postage-stamp sized watch face seems comedic at best.
I think most responders to those kinds of events are still dedicated personnel of some sort. The extra few seconds to take out your phone, phablet, etc. and view video or images doesn't diminsh the ability to respond in time.
I have been using a Gear 2 smart watch for a few months now and I do see a future market for smart watches, but more for ease of use benefits. I now put my phone on mute during the day and let the vibrating watch let me know if i have a call, text or email. Its great for meetings to keep in touch with out constantly touching your phone. I'm not a watch wearer, but the freedom to leave the phone and walk aorund within blue tooth range is great. The apple product will further this into main stream and I do see a time where the watch will be the whole phone.
So to answer your question it will aid in gettign information to people in the terms being a watch you will less likely miss a message.
Call me a skeptic, but I feel like most people will stick with phones moving forward. I never saw the value of a watch versus a phone. I dont think anybody is going to substitute a smart phone for the apple watch long term.
All the big technology companies like Samsung, Apple, and Google are trying to find markets for things like Google Glass (by all accounts a massive failure), the android Ad wear watch (have you seen a single person wearing one of these in your daily lives?), etc. I just don't see the value for these devices as far as video surveillance is concerned. Their screen will never be the size of a phone which limits them for viewing/searching of video. Now, maybe the massive marketing machine that Apple is will convince their extremely loyal customers to buy into the watch (it seems like no matter what Apple does it turns to gold). However, I think this will turn out like Siri did: A heavily marketed feature that most people agree is useless.
If anybody disagrees I'm more than willing to listen to the other side of the argument but I think these watches (whether apple or android) are a novelty more than a functional benefit to the Video surveillance industry.
The more easily end-users are connected to the security system the more they use it. The more they use it the more value they see in maintaining and adding to their security system. Since we introduced good video surveillance and intrusion apps to our customers we have a higher percentage of them coming back, ordering more devices and referring us.
Something as simple as push notifications to a users watch (maybe an alert when a specific person enters the building) would be a great value add. You’re not going to be searching through days of video surveillance with your watch, but it’s easy to receive notifications for things like doors opening, cameras going down, cameras going out of focus…etc. For example, at my house (rather than having my central station call me) I receive push notifications every time my safe or baby’s window is opened and if everyone is out of the house without the home security system being armed.
We make sure we offer apps with every purchase (usually first month free). Most of the positive comments I see from our customers are because of our apps. I have not met one person not willing to pay the extra $6.95/month for the service.
Will all of our end-users take advantage of the features offered on the watch? No. But the ones that have the watch are going to expect them.
Agreed, that's why smartphone/tablet interfaces to systems need to be a first class citizen, not an afterthought. The easier they are to setup and connect, the better.
The watch would just be an extension of that. I doubt a watch interface to a system would make or break the buying decision, but I think the aggregate effect of better more seamless connections to the system will encourage more frequent use and better engagement with the vendor.
I agree with the "people will just use their phones" crowd here. If you already need an iPhone to make the watch work anyway looking at the video on your phone is better than on your wrist. I can see the alarm notification to let you know you should look at the video on your phone, but that is it.
However, the first guy to bust out a security app on his watch will likely face the same fate I did when doing algebra I equations on my Casio Calculator Watch: stuffed into a trashcan for ultra-dork infractions.
Perhaps alarm notifications? Show a picture or video clip of the suspect? Quicker to review and respond?
You mean the same thing you can get now on your phone, only with a much larger screen?
A "smarthome" app like John linked before would be more convenient... I suppose when you're talking at-a-glance, having your VMS app show its push video clip on your watch saves a few seconds - you could check your wrist first and see if it's anything worth pulling your phone out for.
The entire concept of 'wearables' is stupidly overrated. Apple watch may have buzz, but the whole concept is based on vanity (ie: I want people to see I have an Apple watch) vs. practicality, or "You mean all I have to do is take my phone out of my pocket?!?!?"
On a larger scale, several hundred RFID tags are being shipped around the world to backers of a successful crowd funding campaign. Implant pioneer Rich Lee "We're the first to put near field communication (NFC) compliant implants on the market like this", says Graafstra, adding that recent breakthroughs have facilitated chips with greater memory and potential... Graafstra already uses his implants as universal passwords, unlocking physical and electronic barriers. Similar technology is already widely used in contactless card payment systems and clothing tags, and Motorola are developing an RFID-activated 'password pill' that a user can swallow and access their devices without the hassle of remembering them.
But it's crazy to discount the attraction of not taking your phone out of your pocket. That's sort of a big selling point.
I know seemingly everyone is always seemingly always on their phone seemingly everywhere, but we all look like asses doing it. Let's say you're at dinner with your wife, in church, in a meeting, all places where being on your phone is frowned upon heavily. Would you not still want to get an important notification? Your elderly parents calling you repeatedly? Your home alarm system going off? The list goes on.
It's also got NFC and Bluetooth in it, and combined with HomeKit, it's not going to surprise me at all if it's deeply integrated with home automation systems. Detecting you approaching a door, detecting your sleep patterns, etc., and controlling your home accordingly. Yes, things that happen now with other HA platforms, but they're not the smoothest operators. Apple bringing those concepts to market is likely going to be much more polished.
Phones are nice and they've been more integrated into our lives as time goes on, but you're not wearing them. There's a difference in what a phone can detect and what a device on your wrist can. Heart rate, steps, other activity, etc.
All that being said, that thing is damn ugly and I'd never buy it.
Now you have 2 devices to charge constantly. And, if the phone dies first, watch is useless (except for telling time). If the watch goes first, you can STILL TAKE YOUR PHONE OUT OF YOUR POCKET. I know - it is really hard to do...
Also, sine it has NFC, bluetooth, etc., another device to configure power saving settings, enable radios before you can swipe, etc...
What a pain.
And all of the hipsters don't want to wear a watch anyway. They should have chosen an item they WANT to wear, like a fedora or a mustache/goatee....
I've been using Sony's smartwatch 3 (android wear) for 2 months so far. The only video surveillance related app which I 've found is an app that allows me to use my phone as a camera and my watch as a remote monitor. So it let's me to see what's going on around the corner or watch a baby sleeping in next room. I can also record video and save screenshots by tapping the watch. Surely push alarm notifications will also come from apps like axxonnext or similar.
The ability to receive notifications and alerts without having to dig out a phone or tablet makes life a conveinent. I am sure there will be useful apps like starting your keyless car (BMW). Pretty handy if you want to pre heat it. As far as surveillance, it could be used as a tagging, tracking, and locating (TTL) device. Be able to collect waypoints and other places of interests.
The biggest step for Apple watches and Google glasses is that people are still dreaming and making innovations. They build better batteries, newer materials, and newer communications paths. The device may not be as useful now but it is a stepping stone for next innovation.
As far as surveillance, it could be used as a tagging, tracking, and locating (TTL) device. Be able to collect waypoints and other places of interests.
As your phone already can.
Keep in mind, these smart watches depend on the phone for Internet connectivity and a fair bit of the actuall processing side of the app. They are more like remote displays with a couple of additional sensors.
If the watch was 100% independent of the phone I could see more potential use cases. But so far everything mentioned mostly revolves around not having to "dig your phone out" or look at your phone. Sure, there are times when it would be nice to be able to discreetly check alerts, but not so much so that I need/want an additional device to buy/upgrade/charge/deal with.
However, most of the demo videos don't seem to show the part where it takes you a few clicks/interactions to get to the specific app or notification you want to deal with.
As far as security is concerned I think this only has potential merit for people who want to do some form of self-monitoring, it's really not practical for guards or professionals, they are going to use "real" interfaces.
The Alarm.com example still shows a lot of stuff that is really low utility or not applicable to most people. Electronic locks/deadbolts for instance, they've had high interest, but overall very few installations. And another example of something that is going to take a few clicks to get to. At that point you might as well just pull your phone out of your pocket.
I think its important to consider the next generation of leadership/end-users. Millennials are inherently lazy and want to find easier ways to do complex tasks. Don’t forget, millennials wear skinny jeans/pants. They don’t want to carry a phone around with them at the office. The longer manufactures wait to cater to that generation the further they will fall behind. While the watch may be a stepping stone, its important to stay up-to-date with all technology in order to stay relevant. It may never be used by the end-user. If you dont have it, your competition will.
To me, having the ability to receive a push notification with a live video clip of whoever is at our office door is awesome. Why? Because it allows me to better control who comes in my building without hiring someone to stand by the door or sit at the reception. Could I do that with my phone? Sure. But why carry my phone when I can just leave it in my laptop bag and use a watch.
I don’t have a point with the skinny jeans, it was a bad joke (when I wrote it, I was laughing). Everyday more people are looking to empty their pockets or briefcase and carry less. I don’t care what millennials do today, I care what they do in 10-20 years and are running the companies we sell to.
As long as you're on the same wifi as the phone it’s going to work. As technology becomes more convenient, people will find new ways to use it. It won’t be long before you don’t need to connect the watch with your phone. It wasn’t all that long ago that people were laughing at the thought of using your phone to check email and your iPad to review video footage.
The watch isn't a significant leap forward in technology, its a small step and may not be used by a large number of people. However ignore a step and risk losing the race to the top. The most important accomplishment with the watch will be its ability to interact with your phone and computer. Learning how to streamline your products to work with each technology advancement will be key to preparing for the next big step.
An intrusion manufacture we purchased from for years ignored the importance of adding on-board network communication to their alarm panel (coming soon?). Because of this, they have lost a lot of business from us to their competition. Most of our users who regularly use the apps are commercial customers, very few of our residential customers regularly use the apps.
These posts are too long, one last comment. The watch can record your heart rate, movement…etc or the heat rate, movement..etc of a patient staying in a retirement community. Why should an elderly person carry around keys, heart rate monitor, tracking device, panic button…etc when they can wear a watch that can integrate with an EAC system and software that updates caretakers on a patients status in real time anywhere in the community and for kids who pay for that care to ensure their parents are getting out of their apartment enough and being properly taken care of. The watch could even be used as fall detection that opens a channel to the front desk for two way.
As long as you're on the same wifi as the phone it’s going to work.
Not exactly. The apple watch has BLE + Wifi radios. BLE is the primary data tether between the phone and the watch. BLE is good for this because it's very low power (intended for limited range) and has device pairing security at the core of its existence. Wifi is still much faster for data transfer though.
The basic connectivity between watch and phone is all setup using BLE. When higher transfer rates are needed, the devices negotiate a pairing over the wifi channel to enable faster data transfer. But, if you're out of Bluetooth range of the phone, the watch loses much of its smarts.
Sure, you could use pure wifi for the data transfer, but that comes at a significant tradeoff to battery/power draw. This would lead to reduced operational time, and because watches are worn on the wrist, Apple also has to be much more sensitivity to rapid battery drain for the tradeoff of increased heat. Nobody wants a 130 degree F device that is strapped to their wrist.
You’re missing the point. It’s an Apple product and it will most likley sell by the millions. your compeitors will create apps for it, the debate shouldn’t be over if *you like the product or not. It should be over how you’re going to use it to add value to your system and make more money and compete in a changing market place.
"Millennials are inherently lazy and want to find easier ways to do complex tasks. Don’t forget, millennials wear skinny jeans/pants."
I am very glad to hear that is it not just my company experiencing this issue with millennials. Now that you mention that, I am sure there will be quite a few of them wearing these watches by the coffee bars. I am guessing it will be the same group that wore Google Glass for a few months until they figured out it was stupid and useless and made them look the same.
I don't know how much of an impact this will have on surveillance, but the Apple Watch (and wearables in general) is going to have an enormous impact on intrusion, access, and fire. Implemented right, this could have the biggest impact in the security industry of any innovation since the invention of the microprocessor.
Access, for example. Based on the sheer amount of medical data the Apple Watch gathers, I do believe that the watch could identify a wearer with a high degree of reliability. If it can, it can replace credentials. And, because it broadcasts its location, it could open a door before the user asks it to. Seamless access control! Obviously, you'd need some other means of entering credentials in case you lose or forget your watch, but eventually, leaving your home without your watch is going to be as unthinkable as leaving your home without your keys or wallet or glasses- it'll happen, but most people will remember to carry these things with them most of the time.
How about fire? As much as we like to make fun of the Nest smoke detector, they had a point- smoke detectors suck. Why can't they tell the difference between burning food and burning furniture? Why are they so hard to turn off when there is a false alarm? Maybe if I had a wearable, it could tell if my CO levels are elevated, and allow me to turn off the siren by entering a code or something.
Intrusion? Why can't my watch know when I'm coming home, and turn my alarm off for me? Why can't my watch know I'm nowhere near home, and call the cops if it detects anything, even if someone has the right code? Why can't my watch know my heartrate is elevated and send an ambulance?
Wearables are a fun toy, unless they tie into the Internet of Things, which is when they become vital to the enterprise. Read about how wearables literally changed everything about the Disney experience here. That's a glimpse of the future.
To be clear, whilst the Apple Watch has Wi-Fi built in, it will NOT communicate directly with your home access point or any other access point. As Undisclosed A states, the Wi-Fi is only there to offer a higher speed channel than Bluetooth provides for data exchange with your phone (e.g. video).
I think it will definitely be a part of the security and fire space. We're all working to make sure alarms are real, whether they be from video, access, intrusion, or fire. As an organization, if you feel like you've done a reasonable job of eliminating false alarms, the next step is to try and make people pay attention to those alarms.
The watch is (in theory) a more reliable way to alert someone than a phone or tablet. I regularly don't feel my phone vibrate when it's in a pocket and I'm walking. I very rarely don't feel my Pebble watch vibrate.
I agree that it likely is a simple alarm that makes you use another device, but it's more likely to be noticed in my opinion. I can think of many scenarios where this will be helpful, and I'm looking forward to the industry jumping on board.
The review videos that came out were a little disappointing for me. At the same time, Apple has sold at least 950,000 in 24 hours and allegedly sold 2.3 million watches in the first 7 days of pre-sales.
Pre-sales by fanboys who will buy ANYTHING that apple puts out. And shipment has been delayed...
I can't wait for people to start relying on it, to then hear "What time is it?" "Oh, my battery ran out... Let me check my phone."
Many "younger" people don't wear a watch becasue they have a phone and other devices around them to tell them the time. Why are we inventing a watch to replace something they espoused they don't need/want...??
Now you have an additional device to worry about charging and syncing and updating. If you are using it for criticall monitoring, good luck. There are other smart watches out there with better battery life.. Also, the price point is pretty high, which will delay adoption for security-related purposes...