This One Goes to Eleven

The Kobe XI Elite is a fitting capstone to the Black Mamba’s storied on-court career.

When I wrote about the Kobe 9 Elite last January, I suggested it might be the last shoe that Bryant would wear in action as a professional in the Association. But, as all y’all already know, the Black Mamba proved doubters like myself wrong and has managed to will his battered body back for one more season—a season he kicked off in the Kobe X and will finish in his ultimate in-game shoe, the Kobe XI Elite. It’s clear that this final campaign won’t go down as among Bryant’s best, but, after spending time in the Kobe XI Elite, I’m convinced his final game shoe will nonetheless be remembered as a high point in a signature line that’s changed the shape of basketball footwear.

figure 1. Really, what is there to say—the Nike Kobe XI Elite is a stunner. As you can see on the tag affixed to the collar lining in the shot above, this is a colorway I created via NIKEiD. You’ll pay beaucoup bucks for the privilege, but the results can be pretty damn compelling.

I know a lot of people will disagree vehemently with me on this, but I think it’s a matter of fact that no signature shoe line has done more to change the fundamental silhouette of basketball footwear than Kobe’s eleven namesake models. Okay, okay, after you’re done yelling at your screen and rage tweeting me, hear me out because I know what you’re thinking: “Clearly, you’re forgetting about a certain Air Jordan line, you dumb ass.”

I acknowledge that the sixteen signature models that MJ donned for in-game action did more to change the aesthetic of athletic footwear than any other line of shoes, before or since. But let’s compare MJ’s first shoe, the Air Jordan I, with the last he would wear on court, the Air Jordan XVIII: Both were cut high around the ankle; both were fashioned with cut-and-sew leather uppers; and, while the XVIII featured double-lasted construction (meaning its upper was wrapped over its midsole, obscuring the midsole from view), both were built on the same basic architecture of outsole cemented to midsole and topped off with a thin foam sockliner.

figure 2. This is where Bryant’s signature collection with Nike officially kicked off back in 2005: The Nike Zoom Kobe I. Pictured here is the Midnight Navy/White-Varsity Red colorway, better known as the USA. It drew heavily from the shoe Bryant had worn the year prior, the Air Zoom Huarache 2K5, but with a streamlined upper and more extensive use of carbon fiber. It retailed for $130 when it launched, which translates to just under $160 in today’s dollars. It was a fantastic playing shoe and would, I think, compare favorably to many of the hoops offerings on the market today from a performance perspective.

There’s no question that the XVIII delivered significant advances in performance and comfort—for example, its midsole featured a full-length Zoom Air unit supplemented with an additional Zoom Air unit under the heel for incredibly responsive cushioning, and its sockliner was augmented with a molded carbon fiber “control plate” for added support—but I would argue that these advances were evolutionary in nature. To cite an analogous example from another industry, compare today’s Ford Mustang to the original introduced in 1964 and, while the 2016 model clearly offers major improvements versus its progenitor, you can draw a straight line between the two because their fundamental architectures have remained the same. This same sort of through line is evident across the Jordan collection.

Now let’s compare Kobe’s first signature shoe from Nike, the Zoom Kobe I, to the Kobe XI Elite: The ZK I offered a traditional mid-height cut around the ankle, while the XI Elite is cut as low as a running shoe; the I’s upper was formed from leather and assembled with traditional cut-and-sew techniques, while the XI Elite is almost entirely fabricated from a single layer of engineered Flyknit; and, down below, the I featured a conventional outsole-midsole-sockliner stack, while the XI is built on a removable midsole insert that forgoes a separate sockliner and can be customized via NIKEiD. In short, the Kobe XI Elite represents a fundamental break from its origins; as compared to the Zoom Kobe I, it manifests a wholly different concept of what a basketball shoe can and should be.

figure 3. Nike’s Kobe line has changed in fundamental ways from its start with the Zoom Kobe I to its latest incarnation in the Kobe XI Elite. Along the way, it’s also changed many ballers’ definitions of what a basketball shoe can and should be. To my eyes and feet, the magnitude of this shift is as profound as the leap made by BMW from their flagship 8 Series launched in 1989 to the current generation i8 flagship launched in 2014. Both the XI Elite and i8 represent breaks from the past and bold statements of intent for the future.

Returning, once again, to the automotive world for an analogy, this is akin to the paradigm shift that breaks the line between BMW’s flagship 8 Series coupe introduced in 1989 and its modern-day counterpart, the i8. Where the 8 Series was built on a conventional steel frame and body, the i8 features a core of carbon fiber onto which injection molded plastic panels are draped to form the body shell; and where a gas guzzling V-12 engine motivated the original 850i, the i8 is motivated by a tiny turbocharged 3-cylinder engine that’s augmented with two small electric motors. As for performance, the 850i’s giant V-12 could propel the car from 0 - 60 in about six seconds, but consumed 16 mpg combined in the bargain. By comparison, the i8’s puny powerplant rockets the car from 0 - 60 in about four seconds and sips a miserly 76 mpge. That’s what I call paradigm shifting progress.

Of course, both the 850i and i8 are cars, both come with two doors and both feature BMW’s signature roundel on the hood, but that’s about where their similarities end. In a similar sense, the Kobe XI Elite shares a Swoosh and a namesake athlete with the shoe that kicked off the series, but that’s essentially the extent of their kinship. If anything, the Kobe XI has more in common with the Nike Mercurial soccer boot and Nike Free Rn Distance runner than it does with the Zoom Kobe I.

figure 4. As you can see clearly in this image, the Kobe XI Elite is very much a true low-top. And yet, thanks to the exceptional containment provided by its upper, its relatively low-profile midsole and its artfully designed outsole—complete with outriggers alongside the lateral forefoot and cuboid regions of the foot—it feels reassuringly stable during hard cuts.

Visually, the difference between the Zoom Kobe I and Kobe XI Elite is most obvious in profile view. Any baller playing at an elite level back in 1985—the year the Air Jordan I was introduced—would think you were pulling a practical joke if you showed him the Kobe XI Elite and told him it was a performance hoops shoe. Back then, the high-cut ankle collar defined the look and feel of basketball footwear, and the Air Jordan line did little to challenge that convention over the span of Jordan’s career. Yes, low-top versions of MJ’s game shoes have always been a thing, but His Airness only wore those drop-top variants in a handful of games. By contrast, the low-top Kobe XI Elite is the shoe—it’s what Bryant wears on court and Nike does not offer a higher cut alternative.

But it’s not only in profile that the Kobe XI Elite defines a new silhouette for hoops. Look at the shoe from above—what industry folks refer to as the “toe-down” view—and you’ll notice that it wraps around the foot in a way that’s more akin to a form-fitting soccer cleat than a conventionally clunky basketball shoe. In most all hoops shoes today, the bottom unit (i.e. the combination of the midsole and outsole) is clearly visible from toe-down view because it protrudes out beyond the perimeter of the upper. But look at the Kobe XI Elite from above and its outsole is barely visible. More so than any other basketball shoe on the market today, the bottom dimensions of the Kobe XI Elite actually reflect the bottom dimensions of your foot, which is a large part of the reason why the shoe has been so consistently praised for its natural, agile feel.

figure 5. It’s not only in profile that the Kobe XI Elite defines a new silhouette for hoops. Look at the shoe from above—what industry folks refer to as the “toe-down” view—and you’ll notice that it wraps around the foot in a way that’s more akin to a form-fitting soccer cleat than a conventionally clunky basketball shoe. I think this sleek fit contributes to the XI Elite’s agile, natural feel on court.

Another important contributor to the Kobe XI Elite’s exceptional on-court ride is its drop-in midsole. The concept of an interchangeable midsole is something both Nike Basketball and Brand Jordan have experimented with off-and-on since its February 2011 debut in the Air Jordan 2011 and subsequent application in the “Kobe VII System” later that same year. To my feet, the implementation in the Kobe XI Elite is the best yet in that it does a great job balancing the often dueling benefits of comfort, court feel, impact attenuation and responsiveness. Two big upgrades from the insert featured in the aforementioned Kobe IX are the inclusion of a top cloth, which presents a more pleasant interface for your sock-shod feet, and the addition of a Zoom Air unit under the heel. Even as a fan of Nike’s Lunarlon foam, I appreciated the added bounce delivered by Zoom.

figure 6. The concept of an interchangeable, “drop-in” midsole isn’t new—it debuted in the Air Jordan 2011 and first appeared in the Kobe line later that same year—but, to my feet, the implementation in the Kobe XI Elite is the best yet. It does a great job balancing the often dueling benefits of comfort, court feel, impact attenuation and responsiveness, and introduces the added benefit of customization. Pictured here is the “Responsive Full Length Zoom” drop-in, which offers fantastically springy cushioning that lasts. Bear in mind, though, that this full-length Zoom option demands a $20 premium over the existing $45 uncharge associated with the Kobe XI Elite iD, meaning your wallet will be $265 lighter after all is said and done. Even as a big fan of the shoe, that’s tough to justify.

I should note that those specs I just cited describe the midsole that comes with the stock version of the Kobe XI Elite. Those of a more persnickety nature can customize the insert via NIKEiD, though you’ll pay dearly for the privilege. The iD version of the XI Elite starts at an eye-watering $245—a $45 premium over the already stratospherically priced “base” model.

Aside from the typical aesthetic tweaks available to those with fat wallets, the XI Elite iD offers three midsole cushioning options: the stock Lunarlon + heel Zoom version, Lunarlon with no heel Zoom for those who prefer straight foam, and an ultra-primo version with a full-length Zoom Air unit. That last option will set you back an additional $20—do the math and that adds up to a total cost of $265. As someone who’s always lived by the credo: “Why spend tomorrow what you can spend today?,” I had to go the full-length Zoom route. And I do love actually being able to feel the springy-ness of Zoom Air under the full length of my foot, but, damn, that’s a hell of a lot of coin to drop on a shoe that might not make it through a full season of play (certainly not if you spend any amount of time balling outdoors).

figure 7. Beautiful outsoles have been a hallmark of the Kobe line, and the Kobe XI Elite’s rubber holds to that tradition. What I particularly like about this iteration is the artful blending of lateral outriggers along both the forefoot and cuboid regions of the foot. This is a very elegant way to enhance lateral stability without adding a lot of bulk or weight to the shoe. I haven’t spent enough time playing in the XI Elite myself to comment on traction, but the performance reviews I’ve read suggest that it can vary greatly based on your playing surface, with the XI’s tread not faring particularly well on dusty courts.

There’s a lot more I could write about the Kobe line in general and the Kobe XI Elite in particular, but I suspect I’ve already gone on far longer than most would care to read. The fact that it’s the last shoe Bryant will wear as a pro cements its claim to a spot in sneakerhead history by default. But as someone who’s into kicks for their performance and engineering, I believe the XI earns that recognition. I noted above that the specifics of form and execution have changed dramatically from the Zoom Kobe I to the Kobe XI Elite, but what holds the line together as a collection is that they all reflect Bryant’s singular commitment to performance. Look over each successive model in the line and you see this commitment getting sharper and sharper—unnecessary layers being stripped away, unnecessary components being shown the door—until all you’re left with are the elements essential to peak performance. That commitment is what made Bryant a great player and it’s what makes the Kobe XI Elite a great shoe.

Agree? Disagree? Have questions? Let’s continue the conversation on Twitter @edotkim.

Who’s Worn It:
Kobe Bryant (G- Los Angeles Lakers); DeMar DeRozan (G- Toronto Raptors); Jrue Holiday (G- New Orleans Pelicans); LeBron James (F- Cleveland Cavaliers); Stanley Johnson (F- Detroit Pistons); Zach LaVine (G- Minnesota Timberwolves); Isaiah Thomas (G- Boston Celtics); P. J. Tucker (F- Phoenix Suns); John Wall (G- Washington Wizards)

Reviewed by Ernest Kim, April 7, 2016
	Nike Kobe Elite XI iD† Overall:  Comfort & Fit:  Cushioning:  Ankle Support:  Weight:  14.8 oz* † Ratings based on a meta-analysis of third-party sites. * Based on a US men’s 11. For context, a can of soda weighs 13 oz.
Price: $200 base, $265 as tested Key Tech: Nike Flyknit upper construction augmented with high-strength TPU yarns and integrated Flywire cabling; full-length Lunarlon drop-in midsole augmented with a Zoom Air unit under the heel (base model)—can be customized via NIKEiD to a foam-only option or a full-length Zoom Air option (as tested) Pros: Very comfortable overall; very good fit and support around the midfoot and base of the ankle; highly breathable; exceptional court feel with great flexibility at the forefoot (even with the full-length Zoom Air midsole); lightweight; stunning design Cons: Bigger players may want more forefoot cushioning than that provided by the stock Lunarlon + heel Zoom drop-in; don’t even think about it if you crave ankle coverage; some reports of poor traction on dusty court surfaces; crazy expensive Buying Advice: For in-depth recommendations from a performance perspective, see the reviews from NYJUMPMAN23, Kevin Wong or Jake Sittler. The fact that it’s the last shoe Bryant will wear as a pro cements the Kobe XI Elite’s claim to a spot in sneakerhead history by default. But as someone who’s into kicks for their performance and engineering, I believe the XI earns that spot on its merits. It points the way forward to what the mainstream basketball shoe of the next decade can and should be—lighter, more natural and more tailored to individual needs—and you don’t have to be a Bryant fan to appreciate that. The Kobe XI Elite is heinously expensive—no doubt. And the hurt on your wallet is even more acute in NIKEiD form. But, if you have the means, it gives you an opportunity to experience the future of basketball footwear, today.

One geek’s take on “The Martian”

Better. Than. Star Wars. That’s right, I said it.

I think it offers broad enough entertainment to appeal to general audiences, but if you’ve got even an iota of geek in you, “The Martian” will become one of your most loved movies of all time.

Among the many things it does fantastically well—the story, the directing, the acting, the visuals—I adore the fact that it doesn’t just suggest that it’s okay to be smart; no, “The Martian” shouts from the rooftops that it’s fucking awesome to be smart. Or, to be more precise, that approaching challenges with the intellectual rigor of a scientist or engineer is fundamental to the advancement of our species.

Critically, though, the film also acknowledges that emotion is at the core of what it means to be human and that, ultimately, it’s when we put these two elemental attributes together—intellect and emotion—that we uncover our best selves.

But enough from me—go see it! Then go see it again with family and friends. Make it clear to Hollywood that we want more movies like “The Martian.”

Apple Watch: A generalist’s review

You might be wondering why I’m bothering to publish a review of Apple Watch. After all, volumes have already been written about it, some positive, some less so and some downright hateful.

We’re also on the eve of watchOS 2’s public launch—the first significant update to Apple’s Watch platform since the device became available in late-April. Indeed, the imminent release of watchOS 2 is part of the reason I’m finally getting around to publishing this—I’m interested to see how many, if any, of the critiques I articulate below are addressed by the new OS.

But the main reason I’m taking the time to write this is to provide prospective buyers with a generalist’s perspective on Apple Watch. All the reviews I’ve seen to date have come from very specific points of view—mainly tech pundits, but also fitness fanatics and horologists. While I do have an interest in both technology and fitness (watches, not so much), I’m by no means an expert in either field. So, hopefully, this review will prove useful to those considering an Apple Watch, not as the latest-and-greatest tech gizmo or fitness device, nor as a key inflection point in the history of personal timekeeping, but simply as a device that does or does not impart benefits that outweigh its costs.

+++

The Top 3 Benefits of Apple Watch

1. Instant access to time & meeting information.
Whenever someone notices that I’m wearing an Apple Watch, they invariably ask, in one way or another, what I like best about it. My answer, from my first week of wearing it till now—over four months in—remains the same: the fact that I can instantly see the current time along with a summary of my next meeting (the latter is available on most, but not all of Apple’s built-in watch faces as an added “complication”—see Apple’s page on watch faces and complications for more).

As dull as this may sound, after four-plus months of using Apple Watch, my favorite feature is the ability to instantly see the time along with a summary of my next meeting. As someone who works in a meeting-intensive corporate environment, the latter is a huge benefit.

Most people seem to find this an uncompelling answer. I suspect that they want a more technologically exotic response, such as making calls from my wrist (something I do find useful, but only occasionally), or paying for things at stores (again, cool, but only occasionally useful) or some other gee whiz feature. But I think Apple decided to call this device Apple Watch for a reason. Yes, it is an order of magnitude more capable than any watch that’s come before it, but, much in the way that iPhone’s most compelling benefits remain rooted in communications, the Watch’s most compelling benefits remain rooted in time.

“But I can just pull out my phone to see the time,” is a frequent retort. And that’s certainly true, but I’ve found that there’s a meaningful benefit to knowing exactly where to look to see time-based information in an instant. Whereas the location of my phone frequently changes—it might be in any one of four pants pockets, a jacket pocket, a compartment in my bag, the cupholder in my car, etc.—my Watch is always on my wrist. This might not sound like a particularly sexy benefit, but it’s what I’ve continued to value most about my Apple Watch.

And speaking specifically about the ability to see calendar information at a glance, anyone who, like me, works in a meeting-intensive corporate environment will immediately fall in love with this feature. Not only is it miles more convenient than having to first fish out and then unlock your phone, the ability to see your next meeting on your wrist also makes it possible to discreetly check your schedule while participating in a meeting. This is a sometimes necessary evil that’s very difficult to do on a phone without distracting those around you. In addition, unlike instant access to the current time, this is a feature unique to smartwatches and is, in my experience, executed far more elegantly on Apple Watch than on any other mainstream smartwatch platform.

2. Eliminates notification anxiety.
As someone who keeps his phone on vibrate and generally stashes it in a pants pocket, I was often surprised by just how many phone calls—let alone Messages, Mail or app notifications—I would miss. If I went for even an hour without using my phone, my lock screen would invariably be filled with missed notifications the next time I checked-in. And it’s not as though I wear parachute pants (at least not on a regular basis), yet, more often than not, I would fail to notice the actuation of my phone’s vibration motor.

An important feature of the Watch that isn’t well understood is that it can display any notification that currently appears on your iPhone without the need for a specialized Watch app. So, in this case, the location-based notification that you’re seeing above isn’t coming from an app on my Watch. Instead, the Watch is simply displaying a notification that’s been “passed through” from an app on my phone. This may sound confusing, but the bottom line is that you don’t need to wait for Watch-specific apps to get the benefits of notifications on your wrist.

With Apple Watch, that’s a complete non-issue. After a simple and elegant initial pairing process, the Watch mirrored the notification and VIP settings from my iPhone. After a few days, I customized those settings, limiting notifications relayed to my Watch to only those people and apps that might ping me with important, time-critical messages. Since then, over a period of more than four months, I can probably count on one hand the number of on-Watch notifications I’ve missed.

It’s not that the Watch’s built-in Taptic Engine is super disruptive. In fact, even on its strongest setting I’d describe its feedback as subtle. The difference is that the Watch sits directly against my skin all day long, as opposed to my phone, which might be in a pants pocket, where a vibration would have to travel through multiple layers of fabric to reach my skin, or in a jacket pocket, where jackhammer levels of vibration would be necessary to attract my attention.

And, rather than being disruptive, I’ve found that getting subtle notifications on my wrist makes me feel more empowered. That probably sounds corny, but it’s true because I no longer suffer from notification anxiety.

What you’re seeing here is something Apple calls a “Glance.” That’s a bite-sized chunk of information that I can quickly access by swiping up from the bottom of my Watch’s display. Unlike notifications, Glances do require an underlying watchOS app. In this case, an Alaska Airlines app I have installed on my Watch is offering me this Glance of read-only information related to my flight. Tapping on the Glance would launch the Alaska Airlines app on my Watch, enabling me to get more info or perform some simple actions.

You know the feeling: You’re having a conversation with someone and feel a buzz in your pocket; you want to check the notification in case it’s important, but don’t want to be rude. So you spend the remainder of the conversation distracted because part of your brain can’t stop imagining all of the possible life changing ramifications of missing that critical notification. You come up with some excuse to perfunctorily end your talk and hurriedly whip your phone out of your pocket, only to find that the notification was triggered because your Mom just posted photos of her new dresser to Facebook. F&%$!

With the Watch, that’s all gone away. For starters, based on the way I’ve tweaked my notification settings, if a message makes it through to my Watch, I know it’s from someone I care about and was sent through a medium that suggests time sensitivity. For example, a text from my Mom would trigger a notification on my Watch, whereas that aforementioned Facebook post would not. So I know in advance that any notifications I receive on my Watch are worth looking at sooner rather than later.

Apple Watch also makes it very easy for me to quickly view and act on my notifications. You can read some of the more technical reviews of the Watch to learn the specifics of how this works, but suffice it to say that I find myself responding to texts and other time-sensitive messages more quickly than I did pre-Watch. And that’s a plus because it means I no longer have to rely on my sieve-like memory to recall all the people I need to get back to at the end of a given day.

3. Tracks workout intensity in real-time.
As I noted in the intro to this review, while I do exercise regularly, I’m by no means a fitness junkie, nor have I ever understood the motivations of quantified-selfers. But I do like to have a sense for how hard I’m working when I’m working out, and there’s no simpler metric to gauge that than heart rate.

At the top of this review, I included a photo of my Watch in action at my local climbing gym. One of the main reasons I chose the more expensive stainless steel Apple Watch over the aluminum-based Apple Watch Sport was the former’s inclusion of essentially scratch-proof sapphire cover “glass” (it’s technically crystal, but cover crystal sounds like a karaoke bar). Knowing that I’d want to use my Watch while climbing, scratch-resistance was an important consideration and, four-plus months in, I can report zero scratches on the sapphire. In addition, as the photo directly above shows, Apple Watch can take quite a bit of punishment. This was snapped at the finish of a Warrior Dash event, during which I repeatedly submerged my Watch into mud pools of varying viscosities. While it did lock me out on a couple of occasions because mud lodged between my wrist and the Watch’s heart rate sensors (this made the Watch think that I had taken it off), it nonetheless logged my entire run and worked perfectly after a quick rinse.

I’ve tried chest strap-based HRMs in the past, but I've found them too cumbersome and uncomfortable—especially given that all I’m looking for is an indication of my workout intensity, not ultra-accurate heart rate readings.

A quick aside regarding heart rate accuracy: I’ve read mixed reports on the accuracy of the Watch’s heart rate monitoring. Consumer Reports compared Apple Watch to their highest rated heart rate monitor, the chest strap-based Polar H7, and found no significant differences between the readings from the Watch and those from the Polar model. A similar comparison conducted by MIT Technology Review, however, showed a wide disparity in readings between the same two devices. I suspect that differences in testing methodologies had a lot to do with the inconsistencies in these results.

While I’m not equipped to speak to the accuracy or inaccuracy of Apple Watch’s HRM (I don’t have a medical grade ECG handy for comparison), I can report that the readings from my Watch have been consistent over time. And that’s perfect for me, because that day-to-day consistency is all I need to compare my current level of effort to my resting state and to previous workouts.

Beyond giving me a simple number that lets me know if I’m pushing myself as hard as I should be, keeping track of this data has led to some interesting insights. For one thing, I learned that running keeps me at a higher effort level than any other workout, including a tough elliptical workout that I subjectively believed required greater effort. I still do elliptical work to get the benefits of cross training, but, based on this information, I’ve incorporated more running into my weekly exercise regime.

I’ve also found that my Watch can give me advance warning of illness. On two occasions, I noticed that my heart rate was roughly five beats-per-minute higher than it would normally be during a given activity. I wasn’t exhibiting any outward signs of sickness at the time of these measurements, but, on both occasions, I began to show typical cold symptoms within a couple of days.

Clearly, my body was already fighting a virus when the Watch started to pick up my elevated heart rate, so it’s not that it can prevent sickness. But by giving me advance warning, the Watch did enable me to take countermeasures earlier on, which many studies have shown can significantly shorten the duration of cold symptoms.

The short of it is that I’ve found the heart rate monitoring provided by Apple Watch to be very useful. I only wish Apple provided a better, more consumer-friendly way to review my historical heart rate data, which might enable me to uncover important trends over time. As is, the only way to see my historical data is via the Health app on my iPhone, which offers an interface that only an actuary could love. If anyone has recommendations for third-party apps that enable richer visualization of existing Health data, please tweet them to me @edotkim.

I should note that I’ve also found the Watch’s ring-based Activity app to be a simple and effective motivational tool that actually does encourage me to be more active on a daily basis. But don’t take my word for it, read Jim Dalrymple’s review of Apple Watch to get a sense for the outsized impact this device can have on one’s health and well-being.

While I didn’t have a chance to mention it in the body of my review, Siri seems to be more accurate and effective when invoked via my Watch versus my iPhone 6 Plus. I rarely use Siri on my phone, but find myself using the service multiple times a day on my Watch to do things like set timers, play music and dictate text messages.

There are a lot more things that I like about my Apple Watch, but these are the three biggies. Still, my experience over the past four-plus months hasn’t been all moonlight and roses. Here are the things I’ve haven’t liked so much...

+++

The Top 3 Downsides of Apple Watch

1. It’s too fiddly.
Okay, so fiddly may not be a technical term, but it’s the word that comes to mind most readily to describe the experience of configuring and interacting with Apple Watch.

As I noted in the section on notification anxiety above, the process to pair a new Apple Watch with an existing iPhone is as straightforward as you’d expect from an Apple device. You simply ensure that your Watch is powered on and then, on your iPhone 5 or later, launch the Apple Watch app that now comes bundled with iOS. The two devices will walk you through the initial configuration, which is very similar to the process for setting up a new iPhone and should take no longer than seven to 10 minutes.

That’s all pretty straightforward. It also introduces you to the fact that the Watch is very much a satellite device to your iPhone. Where things start to get fiddly is when you try to depart from Apple’s defaults.

For example, let’s imagine you want to re-arrange the apps on your Watch’s Home screen, which can quickly become crowded with inscrutable little glyphs. According to Apple’s documentation, it’s possible to do this from the Watch itself by touching and holding an app icon until all of the icons start to jiggle, but I’ve never seen this actually work. Instead, the icons just “bounce” as though I’ve made an errant tap on the screen. So I have to go to the Apple Watch app on my iPhone to customize the app layout on my Watch. And, even then, the process is needlessly fiddly, with auto-snapping behaviors that drive me bananas.

And many settings, such as determining which Glances appear when you swipe up from the bottom of your watch face, can only be configured via the Apple Watch app on your iPhone. I suppose this is similar to the early days of the smartphone, when a wired connection to a host computer was required to perform many critical tasks. But given that we’ve been “PC Free” since iOS 5, this reliance on a secondary device for basic configuration tasks feels like a step backwards, even if it is understandable.

Where I think Apple Watch gets really confusing, though, is in configuring app notifications. This is because control over the notifications that appear on your Watch is managed by way of an interplay of settings on the Watch itself, settings within the Apple Watch app and settings on the iPhone that you’ve paired with your Watch. In my experience, many people already have a hard time grokking the notifications interface on their iPhones, so it’s no surprise that adding additional layers of complexity should add to the befuddlement (see AppleInsider for a good primer on configuring Apple Watch notifications).

This is particularly unfortunate because you really need to tweak your notification settings to get the most out of Apple Watch. As noted earlier, the Watch mirrors your phone’s settings by default and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, this will result in notification overload. For example, do you really want to get buzzed on your wrist every time you receive an email, regardless of the sender? Or every time someone likes one of your photos on Instagram, or retweets you on Twitter? Probably not. Yet the fiddly nature of notification configuration for the Watch means that many users won’t get the most out of one of its best features.

There are several more examples of fiddly-ness I could cite here, but in the interest of concluding this review before the next ice age, I’ll move on.

2. Yet another device to charge.
One more device to charge every night—no big deal, right? That’s what I assumed when I ordered my Apple Watch. But after using it for several months now, I’ve been surprised by the extent to which the need to charge it nightly has colored my view of the device.

First, I should note that the battery life of my 42mm Stainless Steel model has exceeded expectations. I’ve heard some owners of the smaller, 38mm model report that their Watches hit the Power Reserve wall on days they use the Workout app (the Watch typically takes a heart rate reading once every 10 minutes, but this is amped up to once every 10 seconds when the Workout app is running, significantly increasing power draw), but I’ve tracked workouts lasting upwards of two hours and still ended the day with battery power at just a few ticks under 50 percent.

So, in my experience, the 42mm Apple Watch offers more than enough juice to get through a day of heavy use. I’ve even managed to get through a full day, a full night and half of the next day on a single charge. But for consistent performance, your best bet is to charge the Watch every night.

Now, I may be an oddball here, but I’ve found that this need to charge nightly contributes to a certain amorphous sense that the Watch is a burden rather than a benefit. First, there’s the need to find a place for the Watch’s proprietary Magnetic Charging Cable on my nightstand, which is already over-crowded with devices; not to mention finding a place to plug in the associated power adapter, which is small but nonetheless takes up a precious outlet on the already over-crowded power strip hidden behind said nightstand.

Then there’s the need to remember to pack that cable and adapter when I travel, and then find a place to plug them in at the hotel, which always seems to skimp on accessible outlets near the bed. I’ve taken a few overnight trips in the four-plus months that I’ve owned an Apple Watch and, before each, I’ve paused to consider whether this rigamarole was worth the effort. In each case I ultimately decided it was, and I’m glad I had my Watch with me on those trips, but I had to think about it. By contrast, I wouldn’t spend even a nano-second considering whether it’s worth taking my smartphone with me on a trip.

Although it’s only occasionally useful, the most magical feature of Apple Watch I’ve experienced thus far is its application of haptic feedback (i.e. buzzing on your wrist) to enable eyes-free navigation. This works whether you’re driving or walking, but is most effective when exploring a city on foot. I used it frequently while on a recent holiday in Copenhagen and it made me feel like I had some form of extrasensory perception; I was able to navigate streets I’d never encountered before without once looking down at my phone’s screen for directions. This is an experience that can only be delivered by way of a wearable computer, and it makes me hopeful for the future of Apple Watch as a platform that enables use cases wholly distinct from today’s smartphones.

In a nutshell, a smartphone blows away any cost/benefit analysis rooted in the day-to-day burdens it imposes versus the day-to-day benefits it affords. In the case of Apple Watch, however—even when you take purchase price out of the equation since I’ve already paid for mine—that burden-to-benefit ratio may not compute.

3. It lacks a “sense of occasion.”
I mentioned in the intro to this review that I’ve never been particularly interested in watches. That said, I was fortunate enough to receive an Omega Constellation as a graduation gift many moons ago and, though I rarely wear it, it’s something I’ve held onto and valued for its beauty as a manufactured object.

On those infrequent occasions when I do don it, I’m struck by the emotions that wash over me as I take it out of its box (of course I kept the box!) and slide it onto my wrist. After all these years it still feels special, and imparts some of that feeling of specialness onto me when I wear it.

It’s true that a stainless steel Constellation is a few times more expensive than a stainless steel Apple Watch with Link Bracelet—the most comparable offering in Apple’s line. But that same Watch design stretches up to $17,000 in Edition form, so I think a case-to-case comparison is valid. And, when viewed against competition of this caliber, Apple Watch simply isn’t in the same league.

Yes, Apple’s Watch is beautifully crafted and, with its electronic underpinnings, offers infinitely more functionality than even the most sophisticated Omega, Rolex or Patek Philippe timepieces. Yet, for all its cleverness, the Watch lacks the soul-stirring spark of specialness that even a non-watch guy like me feels when he slips on a decades old, mid-range Omega.

For those who might be wondering, neither the Sport Band, shown here, nor the Milanese Loop, depicted in a few photos above, has scratched the palm rest on my MacBook Pro. I’m also happy to report that neither of the bands has caused me any wrist discomfort while typing. Furthermore, I've had no problem at all with either band pulling on my wrist hair. On the contrary, I've found both to be terrifically comfortable: the Milanese Loop drapes around the wrist as though it were made of fabric, giving it the edge in terms of pure comfort, but the Sport Band gets the nod when I work out because it retains a consistent fit, whether I'm running, climbing or even in the pool.

Jony Ive has described Apple Watch as “the most personal product we’ve ever made,” which is true. Unlike a computer or even a phone, you wear a watch. And not only that, you wear it on your wrist for the world to see. Consequently, whether consciously or not, a watch becomes an expression of your identity—as much totem as tool. And, now that I’ve started wearing Apple Watch on a daily basis, I find myself wishing it did more to deliver on the former.

But, hey, I’ve already told you that I’m not a watch guy. For a true horologist’s take on Apple Watch, go read Benjamin Clymer’s thoughtful review at HODINKEE.

+++

Conclusions

Well, if you’ve been on the fence about Apple Watch, I hope this review helps to inform your decision making. In my case, I’ve found the Watch’s benefits to outweigh its shortcomings. But, after reading the above, you may conclude that one or more of the downsides I’ve highlighted is a show stopper. And that’s okay because my intent is to help fellow generalists make a decision you’ll be happy with.

If you’re struggling to pick a gift for an active person in your life who already owns an Apple Watch, consider a pair of Bluetooth headphones. Even many Watch owners don’t realize that it’s possible to store up to 2 GB of music directly on an Apple Watch (the process is a bit cumbersome to set up—see this Apple support note for details). This means that if you pair your Watch with a set of Bluetooth buds, you can leave your phone at home or in a locker and still listen to music while tracking a workout outside or at the gym. I purchased a pair of JayBird BlueBuds X Sport headphones because they sounded so much better than any of the other Bluetooth-based earbuds I was able to trial at my local Apple Store (and my comparison included Beats’ Powerbeats 2 Wireless In-Ear model, which sounded terribly harsh and tinny to my ears), and I’ve been quite satisfied. Note, however, that BlueBuds recently released an updated model, the X2, which they claim sounds even better.

After over four months with a 42mm stainless steel model, the only thing I’d do differently with the benefit of hindsight is to save $200 and purchase an aluminum Apple Watch Sport instead—especially with the recent introduction of gold and rose gold aluminum cases. At that lower price point, my critique regarding the “lack of a sense of occasion” is significantly diminished—especially considering that you retain 100 percent of the functional benefits of the stainless steel models.

Agree? Disagree? Have questions? Let’s continue the conversation on Twitter @edotkim.

Why CarPlay is a dead-end & how Apple can turn it around.

For the benefit of the TL;DR crowd, here’s the gist of this piece: CarPlay is a fundamentally flawed product that should be scrapped to give the engineers in Cupertino the space to come up with an in-car concept that’s actually better than the status quo.

Now, for the Android partisans who’ve landed here in the hopes of finding an Apple hit piece, I believe Android Auto suffers from the same fundamental issues, so: These aren’t the droids you’re looking for … move along … move along.

Okay then, for the four of you who are left, part of the reason I’m calling Apple out on their in-car initiative rather than Google is that Google has not published a manifesto claiming that “every idea we touch enhances each life it touches” (see the video below). Nor has Google CEO Larry Page publicly declared that “We’re not in the junk business,” as Apple CEO Tim Cook has on multiple occasions (suggesting, not so subtly, that others are).

It’s fair to say that I’ve found the tone of Apple’s recent pronouncements more than a little off-putting in their tendency towards narcissism and passive-agression. And yet, I’ve been a longtime fan of the brand and its offerings, so what truly inspired me to write this overlong treatise on CarPlay was my deeply disappointing experience with the product itself. I might even go so far as to call it a junk product, Tim Cook’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Before diving into why it’s junk, however, I feel a quick primer on CarPlay is in order, starting with Apple’s own description:

“CarPlay takes the things you want to do with your iPhone while driving and puts them right on your car’s built-in display. You can get directions, make calls, send and receive messages, and listen to music, all in a way that allows you to stay focused on the road. Just plug in your iPhone and go.”

Note that that last line is meant literally. Even if your car supports Bluetooth audio and hands-free control, CarPlay requires a physical connection via a Lightning-to-USB cable. Now, if you’re a Mac geek, you may have read rumors indicating that the latest beta release of iOS 8.3 includes support for something called “wireless CarPlay,” but that tidbit comes with a caveat the size of an Escalade: By all accounts, wireless CarPlay will only work in vehicles equipped with both CarPlay and in-car WiFi connectivity. So, those hoping for CarPlay over Bluetooth to ever be a thing are almost certainly out of luck. And, given the slow rate of replacement for automobiles, this means the overwhelming majority of CarPlay users will be stuck with a wired connection for years to come.

This image, courtesy of Mercedes-Benz, shows an as yet unreleased implementation of CarPlay that should be available in C-Class models before the end of this year. Note that all incarnations of CarPlay demonstrated to date require a wired connection to an in-car USB port, as illustrated here. I think many will find this to be a step backwards from existing Bluetooth hands-free systems, which are completely wireless. Worse yet, unless the manufacturer of your ride offers a post-purchase upgrade to in-car WiFi (something that’s laughably unlikely), you’ll be stuck using CarPlay with a wired connection for as long as you own your vehicle.

Speaking of wired connections, astute readers may have noticed the specific callout for a Lightning-to-USB cable in the paragraph above. That’s because CarPlay requires a Lightning-enabled iPhone, meaning the iPhone 5 or later. Putting these bits together, the minimum requirements for CarPlay are a recent vintage iPhone and a set of wheels with a CarPlay-compatible infotainment system (including a USB port). The shaded region of the Venn diagram representing the intersection of these requirements is pretty small today, but it is growing.

Rough Edges
Right then, now that you know what CarPlay is meant to do, what’s so bad about it? Well, for starters, it has more rough edges than a coal mine. For example, nearly every review I’ve read has criticized CarPlay for lacking the real-time responsiveness we’ve come to expect from our devices—a problem I experienced first-hand when I tried CarPlay on a Pioneer aftermarket head-unit (the Pioneer AVIC-5000 NEX to be exact, which retails for $750). Here’s how Zac Hall put it in his review of CarPlay for 9to5Mac:

“CarPlay can also be sluggish at times. Tapping an icon to launch a function could sometimes result in 5 or 6 second delays, which isn’t long once it works, but seems like ages while you’re waiting and not knowing if a touch was received.”

Consider that a car traveling at 60 mph would cover anywhere from 440 - 528 feet over the course of this 5 - 6 second delay (for reference, an American football field is 360 feet long, including the end zones), and you realize how problematic an unresponsive in-car system can be. But more on distraction and safety in a minute.

Reviewers have also noted that the few third-party apps available today via the CarPlay interface are, at best, problematic and, at worst, wholly unusable. Longtime Apple watcher Jason Snell highlighted this issue on his recently launched Six Colors blog:

“Apple’s site lists eight third-party apps that work with CarPlay, but I could only get two to work: iHeartRadio and Overcast. Both of them provided simple interfaces a la the [Apple] Podcasts app, but I found them to be slow and unreliable. In my testing, both iHeartRadio and Overcast sometimes failed to display any menu at all. Other times, there would be long delays between menu items. And the apps frequently just crashed, stopping playback and taking me back to the home screen.” [Note: You can see this in action at the 5:30 mark in Snell’s video review embedded above.]

Snell goes on to note that, “If one of the apps worked great, I could lay this at the feet of the other app developer, but since both of them are buggy I’m more inclined to blame CarPlay itself.” It’s worth calling out here that an app must be specifically approved for use in-car by Apple before it can appear within the CarPlay interface. For example: I’m a fan of the Downcast podcast player and had it installed on my iPhone when I took CarPlay for a test drive, but the app did not appear on the car’s screen because Apple has not yet approved it for use in-car. At least there’s a good chance that Downcast will eventually earn Apple’s “Works with CarPlay” blessing, but there are classes of third-party apps—maps and messaging being two biggies—that will almost certainly never make it to the CarPlay screen.

So it’s obvious to anyone who spends time with the system that CarPlay suffers from issues with interface lag, stability and third-party app availability. But most reviewers conclude that these foibles will be addressed soon—a fair assumption given the rapid development cycles that are the norm for consumer electronics companies like Apple. Indeed, this is one of the leading arguments mooted in support of systems like CarPlay: While mainstream automakers measure iteration cycles in units of years, tech companies live by a culture of constant iteration that industrial firms simply can’t match. The problem with this assumption, though, is that CarPlay doesn’t actually replace the underlying hardware or operating system powering a car’s infotainment system.

Mirror, Mirror
Apple has been characteristically tight lipped regarding the inner workings of CarPlay, but a few automakers have let slip that it’s essentially a variation on AirPlay Mirroring. In other words, your iPhone uses your car’s built-in display as the equivalent of an external monitor, with all CarPlay-related computing tasks handled by the phone. That sounds pretty straightforward, until you realize that the car’s infotainment system still needs its own OS so that it can, among other things, relay inputs made via the car’s touchscreen and other physical controls back to the phone for processing. This bit—the layer that sits between the car’s hardware and your phone—is not controlled by Apple, and probably never will be for a range of reasons that aren’t worth getting into here.

With each passing model year, cars are becoming less mechanical and more digital. And while purists may bemoan “advancements” like electronic stability control, electric power steering and in-car infotainment systems, there’s no question that the transition to digital has led to improvements in safety, efficiency and convenience. Electronics have become so pervasive, in fact, that it wouldn’t be an overstatement to describe the modern car as a computer on wheels and, like any computer, your car needs an operating system. The in-cabin OS of choice for most automakers today comes from a company called QNX, which is a subsidiary of Blackberry (yes, that Blackberry). Illustrated above is a high-level overview of QNX’s real-time operating system, called Neutrino. As you can see, it’s designed to be highly modular, working atop a range of processing architectures and supporting a wide array of user-facing inputs and outputs.

The bottom line is that, while all CarPlay-related computing tasks are offloaded to your iPhone, the overall system must still work within the compute and memory constraints of your car’s built-in hardware—constraints that are typically defined years in advance of a vehicle’s launch and remain fixed over its 10-plus year lifespan. Because of this, it’s far from a sure thing that a customer adopting CarPlay today will see dramatic improvements in the speed or stability of the system over time. Just ask anyone who’s cursed under their breath at the crapshoot that is AirPlay Mirroring to an Apple TV—a platform that Apple fully controls—whether Cupertino deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to AirPlay performance.

And yet, all this being said, these rough edges are merely peripheral to CarPlay’s core problem, which is that the platform as conceived today is attempting to answer the wrong question. Macworld’s Susy Ochs hinted at this fundamental disconnect after spending 72 hours with the system, ultimately concluding that “CarPlay can’t do anything my iPhone doesn’t do on its own, and obviously the iPhone has a lot more apps.”

That’s Not What I Asked
It’s clear that the goal for CarPlay was to improve upon existing in-car infotainment systems. And there’s no question that existing in-car systems leave a lot to be desired on the usability front. In fact, according to Consumer Reports’ most recent Annual Auto Survey, “The area that garners the largest number of complaints by far is infotainment systems and associated electronics.” So it might seem that this is a great question to tackle: Build a better in-car infotainment system, and the world will beat a path to your door!

The problem is, a better alternative already exists, and Apple created it: It’s called iPhone (or, more broadly, the modern smartphone). An iPhone in your pocket or purse linked to your car wirelessly via Bluetooth is superior to any built-in system on the market today—it’s always connected to the Internet, offers access to over a million purpose-built apps and already contains all of your personal data and media. Yet, rather than improving on this alternative, CarPlay hobbles it by limiting the availability of apps; delivering its few supported apps via a laggy, unresponsive interface; and forcing users to physically tether their phones to their cars.

For those who’ve been following Apple for a while, this may stir memories of Steve Jobs’ take on the smartphone market prior to the introduction of iPhone in mid-2007. From his celebrated Macworld keynote in January of that year up till the phone’s launch in June, Jobs repeatedly highlighted the limited capabilities of competitors’ devices—particularly in terms of their Internet connectivity. For example, here’s an excerpt from Jobs’ conversation with Walt Mossberg at the D5: All Things Digital conference in May of 2007:

“You’ve used the Internet—or you’ve tried to use the Internet—on your phone, and it’s terrible. They have lousy browsers ... I mean, you don’t get the Internet, you get the baby Internet or the “mobile” Internet or something bizarre. And what people want is the real internet on their phone.”

To paraphrase Jobs, what Apple is offering today in CarPlay is the baby iOS—underpowered and mystifyingly limited in functionality—when what people want is the real iOS, made better for use while driving.

As an observer looking at this from the perspective of a product manager, my conclusion is clear: Apple needs to shift from their current question, which asks: “How can we improve on today’s in-car infotainment systems?,” to a much tougher—but also much more meaningful—question: “How can we improve on today’s in-car iPhone experience?”

Focus Means Saying No
So, where to begin? Based on a review of the in-car infotainment landscape, if I were calling the shots, I’d focus on two fronts: safety and convenience. And, to enable my team to pour all of their efforts into delivering real benefits on these fronts, I’d shut down any work related to integration with in-dash displays—in other words, I’d kill CarPlay as it exists today.

Why? For starters, as outlined above, this attempt to piggyback on in-car systems shackles Apple to embedded hardware that’s already years out of date by the time it reaches dealers’ lots. But, more importantly, anything that takes drivers’ eyes off the road—such as in-dash displays—increases the likelihood of an accident. I’m sure that sounds terribly obvious, but the statistics are striking: According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), distraction was a factor in 10 percent of fatal crashes in the U.S. in 2012, which translates to 3,328 souls lost to entirely avoidable circumstances. Furthermore, related research suggests that 15 - 20 percent of all in-car distractions involve drivers interacting with technology. This is a real problem, and adding another screen-based experience in the form of CarPlay does nothing to solve it.

The obvious alternative is voice control, and those familiar with CarPlay will note that the system already makes extensive use of Apple’s Siri voice recognition platform. It’s true that independent research has shown that “driving performance is better … and there is less time spent looking away from the road when using speech as opposed to manual [i.e. touch based] interfaces to operate an in-vehicle system” (Barón & Green, 2006). The problem is, not all speech interfaces are created equal, and a damning study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety suggests that Siri is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to in-car performance.

The chart above is based on data from a rigorous study published by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in October of 2014, and titled Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile II: Assessing In-Vehicle Voice-Based Interactive Technologies. I highly recommend downloading the full study if you want to dig into the details, but, in a nutshell, this infographic depicts the levels of in-car cognitive distraction associated with several of the most widely used automotive infotainment systems. It’s important to note that all of the systems, including Siri, were used in fully hands- and eyes-free mode, meaning that they were entirely voice driven. Higher bars are worse and, as you can see, Siri fared very poorly.

Just how bad is Siri? According to the University of Utah researchers who authored the AAA study, even though Siri was configured to work purely hands- and eyes-free, “the [cognitive] workload ratings exceeded category 4 on our workload scale—the highest ratings that we have observed for any task … Moreover, there were two crashes in the simulator study when participants used Siri (the only other crash we observed was when participants used the menu-based [touchscreen] systems).”

This might seem unbelievable, but the researchers highlighted specific aspects of the Siri experience that contributed to these results:

“Common issues involved inconsistencies in which Siri would produce different responses to seemingly identical commands. In other circumstances, Siri required exact phrases to accomplish specific tasks, and subtle deviations from that phrasing would result in failure … Some participants also reported frustration with Siri’s occasional sarcasm and wit.”

I think that last point captures the core of the problem with Siri—as smart as the system may seem on the surface, it lacks the critical element of contextual awareness. Whereas research has shown that a flesh-and-blood driver and passenger will dynamically modulate the complexity of their conversation based on driving conditions, Siri is as verbose in a car speeding along at 60 mph as it is on a couch doing zero. Both Apple and Google have been using real-time location data pulled from our phones to display traffic conditions in their respective Maps apps for years, so the technological underpinnings for a contextual Siri are already in place—Apple just needs to connect the dots.

Apple has been polling location information from iPhone users for years to support the real-time traffic feature of the Maps app bundled with iOS. This means that, so long as you have the “Routing & Traffic” setting turned on (it’s on by default), your iPhone can determine that you’re in a moving vehicle, and know the road you’re traveling along. As far as I can tell, however, Apple is not using this data to inform the performance of Siri, which is a big miss, as this added layer of context could significantly enhance the utility and usability of Siri while driving.

To be fair, there are indications that Apple is limiting some aspects of Siri functionality when an iPhone is paired with an in-car Bluetooth interface. But, in my experience, the company has done nothing to limit Siri’s verbosity while driving, nor have they addressed the system’s penchant for inconsistent responses, as highlighted in the AAA study. I think it’s crucial that Apple prioritize these sorts of contextual enhancements to Siri alongside the company’s ongoing work to improve recognition accuracy.

One other Siri-related feature I’d be lobbying for if I had the keys to Apple’s in-car efforts would be the introduction of an API for third-party developers. This is by no means a new idea—the Apple developer community has been pining for a Siri API since the platform was introduced back in 2011. Sadly, anyone who’s been holding their breath has either passed out by now or completely given up hope, but this needs to happen for Siri to be accepted as a go-to in-car companion. Even a limited API reserved for certain classes of apps, such as audio and messaging, would be a huge step forward because it would enable drivers to use their favorite apps (as opposed to a tiny assortment of apps hand-picked by Apple) while keeping their eyes on the road—something that isn’t possible today with an iPhone.

Addressing these two Siri shortcomings is where I’d apply most of my energies as Apple’s in-car czar, because I believe fixing them would deliver the biggest real world safety gains. Now, I say “most” of my energies because, as noted at the start of this section, my efforts would be focused on two fronts: safety and convenience. And, when it comes to convenience, I’d go all in on improved Bluetooth performance (please, hold your applause … no, really, you’re all too kind).

It’s no secret that Bluetooth has been a bugbear for Apple since Bluetooth has been a thing (if you’ve been under a rock for the past few years, just Google “Apple Bluetooth problem” to get up to speed). And to those who say that the fault lies with the automakers, that fails to explain the explosion in Bluetooth issues that always seems to coincide with major releases of iOS and Mac OS X. The bottom line is that the implementation of Bluetooth on Apple devices today is far from great, and improving it is essential to answering the question of an improved in-car iPhone experience.

Fail Forward
There are many other features Apple could implement to enhance the experience of using an iPhone while driving, such as rich integration with the upcoming Apple Watch and its “Taptic Engine.” But I believe the work areas outlined above must take precedence if the company is serious about delivering a “smarter, safer and more fun way to use iPhone in the car,” which is how CarPlay was described in the press release announcing its launch exactly one year ago.

As it stands today, CarPlay is none of those things. This may explain why, 365 days on from its premiere, exactly one CarPlay-equipped vehicle—the Ferrari FF—is available for purchase (assuming you have roughly $300K to spare). Meanwhile, Toyota, which is the world’s largest automaker and was cited in Apple’s original press release as a CarPlay partner, has done an about-face, telling the New York Times that “it currently had no plans to adopt Android Auto or CarPlay in the United States.” Perhaps engineers at Toyota read the aforementioned AAA study, which found that Toyota’s in-house Entune hands-free system was significantly less distracting than Siri?

This is all conjecture on my part, but these signs suggest that CarPlay is running on fumes before it’s even passed the start line. The one thing that gives me hope for the future of Apple’s in-car efforts is the company’s unusual willingness to kill or fundamentally re-conceptualize products that it deems wanting. One example is the Apple TV, which started life in 2007 as a $299 media center PC with its own 40 or 160 GB hard drive (for those who don’t remember, it looked like a slightly smaller Mac mini), but was then completely re-imagined for 2010 as a $99 streaming media puck. More recently, Apple announced the discontinuation of the company’s long-lived iPhoto and Aperture apps for Mac, with both due to be replaced by an entirely new Photos for Mac OS X app within the next few months.

The “Designed by Apple” manifesto I referenced at the start of this piece includes a line that reads, “There are a thousand ‘no’s’ for every ‘yes,’” and I very much hope Apple has the institutional fortitude to attach one of those “no’s” to CarPlay. I don’t claim that the approach I’ve outlined above is necessarily the answer, but it’s clear that the CarPlay of today is headed in the wrong direction. And Apple needs to get it right because, unlike an Apple TV or Apple Watch, getting it wrong can be a matter of life and death.

Agree? Disagree? Have questions? Let’s continue the conversation on Twitter @edotkim.

Symphony No. 9

The KOBE 9 may mark the end of the Black Mamba’s on-court career, but, sad as that would be, this stunning shoe would represent one hell of a closing act.

As I noted when I re-booted Kicksology.net last September, I won’t be writing any new performance reviews—the reason being that my body is too broke-down to play anything beyond a game of H-O-R-S-E these days. If you’re looking for thorough on-court assessments of the latest kicks, check out Nightwing, Mr Foamer Simpson or the guys at KicksGenius.

But the end of my playing days doesn’t mean the end of my irrational exuberance for footwear. So I’ll continue to highlight shoes that pique my interest, whether it’s for a clever design element, or the introduction of an important new method-of-making or an unusually beautiful fusion of form and function. The KOBE 9 Elite just so happens to deliver on all three of these counts, which is why I was willing to empty out my wallet and harvest all the change from behind my sofa cushions to purchase a pair of the Elite Lows via NIKEiD (yes, they’re spendy).

figure 1. Sneaker design legend Tinker Hatfield described the KOBE 9 as “one of the most iconic, most beautiful shoe designs I’ve ever seen.” Who am I to argue with greatness? One of my favorite aspects of the KOBE 9’s design are the subtle ridges molded into the rubber sidewalls that wrap up around the base of the toebox. To my eye, their organic curves echo the shoe’s beautiful, pressure map-inspired outsole, while also evoking the many threads that comprise the KOBE 9’s innovative Flyknit upper.

It might seem strange that I should post this on the day that Kobe’s next signature shoe, the Kobe X, is officially unveiled. But the X won’t hit store shelves until February 7th, so any sneaker aficionados out there who’ve slept on the KOBE 9 Elite still have a brief window to cop a shoe that I believe will go down as the most important chapter in a storied line of signature kicks. And it’s worth noting that I’m not alone in my admiration for the 9: None other than Tinker Hatfield—he of Air Jordans III through XV, amongst many other icons of sneaker history—described the KOBE 9 as “one of the most iconic, most beautiful shoe designs I’ve ever seen” in an interview with Complex TV’s “Quickstrike” crew.

So, what’s so great about the 9? Well, for starters, as Tinker observed, it’s just drop-dead gorgeous. Yeah, yeah, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. But the allure of some works transcends individual subjectivity: Take Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 in D Minor as one example, or the Jaguar E-Type as another. Like those universal classics, I’m convinced that the soul-stirring beauty of the KOBE 9 Elite High and Low will be recognized far-and-wide for decades to come.

figure 2. Among the many customization options available for the KOBE 9 Elite Low via NIKEiD is the ability to add an embroidered message to the inner side of the tongue. You can add a large, two-character “Short iD” (useful for jersey numbers or initials) and a smaller, eight-character “Long iD.” In my case, I’ve opted for the Long iD only, and included a reminder to myself to “Dream By Day.” This shot also offers a good look at the KOBE 9 Elite’s beautiful carbon fiber heel counter and lateral support wing. Given the relatively high cost of carbon fiber, the material is limited to the primo priced Elite versions of the shoe.

A critical enabler of the KOBE 9 Elite’s transcendent design is the innovative manufacturing method underpinning its upper: Nike Flyknit. For the past several centuries, shoe uppers have been constructed using a process industry folks call cut-and-sew. As the name suggests, this involves cutting small panels of material out of larger sheets, and then sewing or glueing those panels together to form a finished upper. The longevity of this basic process speaks to its utility, but there are some downsides.

First, joining panels of material together—whether through sewing or glueing—invariably introduces stiffness along the interface where those panels meet. Related to this point, it can be very challenging to add targeted performance features via cut-and-sew without sacrificing comfort. Say, for example, you want to build stretch into one region of an upper and support into another. This would require disparate panels of materials with the necessary properties to be joined, but the more panels you introduce, the greater the potential for discomfort along the stiffened seams where those panels meet. Finally, this process is inherently wasteful because it’s based on cutting small panels of non-uniform parts out of large, uniformly rectangular sheets. Manufacturers have developed clever software that enables them to maximize the parts yield from each large sheet, but, because shoe parts tend to be oddly shaped, there’s always some material left over (the scraps can be recycled, but there’s cost and energy associated with the recycling process, so it doesn’t fully mitigate the waste produced at the cutting stage).

figure 3. The medial view above provides a good look at the different stitch and fiber applications that Eric Avar references in his quote below. You can see that the toe box area of the KOBE 9 Elite features a much tighter knit to help keep the forefoot planted on the footbed during hard cuts, while the midfoot features a more open knit geometry to allow the upper to move with the foot through that crucial fit zone. Among the many cool features of Flyknit is the ability to engineer “tunnels” into the regions of the upper where the designer wants to deliver added lockdown by way of dynamic Flywire (in the shot above, you can see Flywire cables tunneling through the upper along the medial arch). The net result is great fit around the midfoot without the “board-y” feel sometimes associated with more traditional, multi-layer applications of Flywire.

What makes Flyknit remarkable from a design and manufacturing perspective is that it addresses all of these issues. Rather than attempt to explain this myself, I’ll turn to two people with much greater expertise on the topic: Nike CEO Mark Parker and Eric Avar, the creative mind behind the KOBE 9 and a footwear design legend in his own right.

Mark Parker: Flyknit is, in many respects, game-changing in terms of performance, in terms of design … It used to be largely cut-and-sew construction for many centuries, which is more of a collage, where pieces come together. Today, we’re working at a fiber level and at a pixel level … down to the millimeter. On top of that, it changes the game of manufacturing. You’re taking one of the most labor intensive parts of the manufacturing process and simplifying it. There’s a sustainability factor and in this [KOBE 9 Elite High], there’s about 50% less waste than in a conventional basketball shoe. If you look at running [models], it’s potentially 80 to 90% less waste.

Eric Avar: You can design the amount of stretch and breathability exactly where you want it. Between the stitch and the fibers, you can create an unbelievable amount of performance properties. In the forefoot, where you really want some lockdown and security against all of the lateral forces, you can use a certain type of stitch and a certain type of fiber. Then, through the midfoot, where you want more of a dynamic and secure fit, you use another stitch and fiber … Knit, from a design perspective, allows us to use so many variables, and it’s essentially a blank canvas that allows us to design from a functional standpoint and also from a visual standpoint, so it’s really amazing.

These quotes come from Sole Collector, which interviewed Mark Parker, Eric Avar and Kobe Bryant at the launch of the KOBE 9 Elite last February. And, just to be clear, the stitch- and fiber-level control over performance characteristics that Parker and Avar highlight above is all built into a single layer of Flyknit construction. In the case of running applications, that single layer can constitute the entire upper, meaning that overlays and seams joining disparate materials are effectively eliminated. The net result is sock-like comfort and fit combined with precisely tuned support; the dramatic reduction in waste material is a huge attendant benefit.

Sports involving lots of lateral movement—e.g. basketball, soccer and American football—generate so much shear force that the Flyknit construction has to be reinforced to keep the wearer’s foot planted on the shoe’s footbed. But, even so, the KOBE 9 Elite completely dispenses with traditional overlays and is, instead, reinforced internally using a stitch-less process that Nike calls “Fuse.” Much as in running, the promise is an upper that fits and feels like a natural extension of the foot, but with no compromise in the support and overall protection required for court sports.

figure 4. The KOBE 9 would get my vote for most beautiful outsole of any basketball shoe, stretching back to the original Converse Chuck Taylor. And the great thing is that its beauty runs more than just skin deep. Molded from an ultra-thin layer of rubber, the KOBE 9’s underfoot pressure map-inspired outsole design delivers tenacious grip, while also contributing to the shoe’s excellent court feel and feathery weight. But, unless you have an unlimited budget for shoes, I’d limit game time exposure to less abrasive indoor surfaces (note, however, that an ultra-durable XDR outdoor outsole option is available via NIKEiD).

One additional benefit of Flyknit is that a reduction in seams and overlays also nets a reduction in overall weight. In the case of the KOBE 9 Elite Low, the shoe tips the scales at a gossamer 13.7 ounces in a U.S. men’s 11. In all my years of Kicksology, only one shoe has bested this: the Nike Air Flight Lite II circa 2000 - 2001, which weighed a scant 13.5 ounces. But the Flight Lite II’s weight advantage came with a significant trade-off in playability—here’s how I concluded my review back in April of 2001: “the Nike Air Flight Lite II is unquestionably a light shoe [but] that lightness is a product of compromises that make the shoe less than ideal for people who play a quick cutting, hard slashing type of game.”

What’s remarkable about the KOBE 9 Elite is that it’s a featherweight that, by all accounts, punches well above its weight. In other words, you get the benefits of an ultra-light shoe without the compromises in support and protection typically associated with ultra-light kicks.

figure 5. Kobe’s signature shoe line has featured removable midsole construction since the VII, which was introduced in late 2011. There are pros and cons to this approach, but I’m a big fan because it enables a degree of court- and cushioning-feel that can’t be matched by more traditional midsole constructions. I can understand why some reviewers have said they would have loved a full-length or heel Zoom Air unit to augment the Lunarlon insert, but I’m partial to the purity of this foam-only approach. My favorite feature of the midsole is its textured surface, which gives my toes something to grab onto and helps keep my feet awake and active.

At this point, I could go on at length about the KOBE 9 Elite’s unique Lunarlon midsole insert, but I think I’ve blabbed enough. The TL;DR version of this post is this: Get a pair of the KOBE 9 Elite while you still can because you will regret sleeping on this future classic. I know that as an employee of the Swoosh I may not be seen as an impartial observer on this topic, but I was a sneakerhead long before I moved inside the berm, and all my sneakerhead instincts tell me that the KOBE 9 Elite is a shoe that matters—the sort of shoe that, like the Air Flightposite and Huarache 2K4 before it (both shoes designed by Eric Avar, btw), will serve as a frame of reference for much that follows. If that matters to you, procure a pair posthaste!

Who’s Worn It
Kobe Bryant (G- Los Angeles Lakers); DeMar DeRozan (G- Toronto Raptors); Manu Ginóbili (G- San Antonio Spurs); Andre Iguodala (G/SF- Golden State Warriors); Zach LaVine (G- Minnesota Timberwolves); J.R. Smith (G/SF- Cleveland Cavaliers); Dion Waiters (G- Oklahoma City Thunder); Nick Young (G/SF- Los Angeles Lakers)

Reviewed by Ernest Kim, January 31, 2015
	Nike KOBE 9 Elite Low† Overall:  Comfort & Fit:  Cushioning:  Ankle Support:  Weight:  13.7 oz* † Ratings based on a meta-analysis of third-party sites. * Based on a US men’s 11. For context, a can of soda weighs 13 oz.
Price: $245 via NIKEiD Key Tech: Nike Flyknit upper construction augmented with integrated Flywire cabling; full-length Lunarlon midsole insert; carbon fiber heel counter and lateral support wing; ultra-thin rubber outsole Pros: Very comfortable overall; surprisingly good support around the midfoot and base of the ankle; remarkable court feel with great flexibility at the forefoot; excellent traction; incredibly lightweight; stunning design Cons: Some reports of discomfort related to the rigidity of the carbon fiber heel counter; some reports of front-to-back movement within the shoe during hard stops; bigger players may want more cushioning; very expensive Buying Advice: For in-depth recommendations from a performance perspective, see the reviews from Nightwing, Randy Booker, Mr Foamer Simpson or KicksGenius. From a sneakerhead perspective, if you consider yourself a sneaker fan and don’t already own a pair of KOBE 9 Elites, what the hell have you been waiting for?!? Okay, they are really, really expensive, so don’t go blowing your college fund on these if you don’t have the coin. But if you can swing it, by all means do pick up a pair of the KOBE 9 Elites while you still can, because these shoes are something special, and peeps who sleep on them today will regret it for decades to come.