Would Napoleon want a smartwatch? No, no. Probably not.
According to the NY Times, Napoleon was known to become frustrated when telling the time.
Let's pause - that's interesting. Napoleon viewed the activity of time telling with such aggravation that it's noted in multiple historical accounts. Take a moment and recognize the gravity of that. Most things don't make history books. You know that Napoleon found telling the time slightly annoying. A man that died on May 5th, 1821.
Napoleon had the same impatience for the time-telling technology of his era that my mother gets when "her iPhone isn't getting texts anymore".
But I'm not here to tell you that my mom's phone is fully functional. I'm here to ask a question. Why would telling the time frustrate Napoleon so much? It frustrated him to the point that it was documented.
Take a closer look at the paintings. He didn't have a wristwatch. He was living in an era before time-telling went mobile. He had to take his pocket watch out, open it, read the time, close it, and put it away.
Napoleon's dilemma is similar to today's most divisive issue - are smartwatches necessary?
Just kidding. I know that's not today's most divisive issue. But in a world where all information can be mobilized, isn't it time we start asking ourselves which information deserves to go mobile? Shouldn't we be asking what information we actually want to carry with us?
After Napoleon's death during the Boer War in 1899, soldiers began to strap small clocks around their wrists to keep track of time. This is popularly recognized as the beginning of the rise of the wristwatch. These soldiers, in a time of war, thought that time was important enough to mobilize.
But they had it easy. Time is clearly important. It helps us space out our meals. It helps us regulate our schedules and stay productive. Time is what allows us to see growth and decline. Without it, things would only exist in meaningless isolated impressions unrelated to each other. Of course the soldiers wanted to carry time around with them. Time as mobile information makes sense.
Smartwatches surface a lot more information than the basic wristwatch.
You know that. But I've yet to read an article or opinion on what information is worth the distraction. I've yet to see products actively solve for this problem. Maybe I'm not well read. Maybe whoever would have written that article or conceptualized that product is too distracted, checking notifications on their smartwatch.
We live in a heads-down society. Our attention spans are dwindling while our capacity to multitask is improving. According to a study conducted by Microsoft in 2015, the average human attention span has dropped from 12 seconds in the year 2000 before the mobile revolution to 8 seconds.
Leon Watson with Telegraph writes - 8 seconds is less than that of a goldfish. Will smartwatches have an impact on this number? If they do, we're heading into fruit fly territory.
It's worth asking the question - are we selective enough about the information that buzzes in our pockets and (now) on our wrists? We're going to have to start budgeting which information we mobilize.
Some traditional watchmakers are starting to ask the right questions.
Fossil has begun incorporating 'smart features' into their product lines. They believe that people want the aesthetics of a regular wristwatch with the exercise, sleep, and tracking data that smartwatches provide. These watches, purposefully, do not feature abundant wrist notifications. Fossil and a few other companies are engaging in the conversation whether they know it or not. They are forming an opinion about what information deserves to be mobile.
I'm not sure how they'll fare - but I'm rooting for them. Though, if you asked Napoleon, he'd probably die just to have a regular old wristwatch.
Image courtesy Stockvault, Jack Moreh