The Apple Watch works well for my (N=1?) use case: I have an iPhone 6 plus, and no, I don&#x27;t want to pull it out of my pocket or bag dozens of times a day.<p>I had an iPhone 5, and loved the form factor, but not the battery life. The 6+ can handle a couple of days of use as a smartphone and mobile internet access point. The larger screen is irrelevant to me, but the larger battery matters.<p>I like that when the phone rings, I see who&#x27;s calling on the watch. Same for personal messages from my daughter, son, or +1. I like paying for coffee with a bar code on my wrist. I care about the weather and appointments on my wrist, and yes I have used it to call an Uber. The watch needs a better battery life, and it will be a game changer when it becomes untethered. But for now, it is fine just the way it is. I think the Apple Watch is a successful product.<p>As for the post, the title speaks to the watch being a failed <i>platform</i>. It may well be that, Apple has commoditized iOS apps, the opportunity for people to get stinking rich from watch apps is going to be smaller.<p>But if it can be a successful product, I think that is enough. IMO, Apple is playing defense, not offense. Apple wins if people keep buying iPhones. The danger with wearables is that by the time you can make a watch that replaces a smartphone for a lot of use cases, Apple might get disrupted. Likewise if watches tethered to smartphones were to become essential, Apple could get disrupted if it had a poor experience.<p>The last thing Tim Cook wants is to wake up one day and find people walking into stores, buying a Pebble Gizmo2016, and asking the clerk, &quot;What&#x27;s the cheapest phone that works with my new Pebble?&quot;<p>I have a feeling that the Apple Watch 1.0 is doing enough to hedge against watches disrupting smartphones. As the leader in smartphones, that&#x27;s its first concern.