In light of the smartwatch craze, it seems like Microsoft might jump on the tail edge of the trend. I think this is probably one Microsoft should sit out.

I’ve got a Pebble, probably the most popular of the smartwatch pioneers. This watch stands for the open source standard of software and smartwatch relationships. It opens up its platform to a host of iOS and Android applications, which will only grow in capabilities and functionality in the future. It’s also given notice to other bluetooth-enabled smartwatches like the Buddy, a crowdfunded watch from the likes of the popular Pebble Kickstarter campaign.

Then there are the smartwatches that teeter on the brink of fitness bands like the Basis. These wristbands are more complex than let’s say the Nike FuelBand or the Jawbone Up because they tell time and track more activity and provide a more robust breakdown of your movements each day. The Basis brings together 4 major data points that help you track your health throughout the day and night.

Then we begin to hear the big dogs getting into the ring - Google, Apple, Samsung, etc. We’ve even seen concept designs appear, that describe such rumored Google watch concepts — Google Time is what they call it. It’s logical for these guys to start experimenting, at least to get a head start and hope to capture fair market share with the serious marketing power and pull they have. It’s no doubt that if Google and Apple release something, it would be welcomed with open arms, but perhaps not Microsoft.

I only say this because Android and iOS have a significant stake and hold on the smartphone market, giving it a considerable pull on a potential smartwatch market. Moreover, I think the victor of the smartwatch market will be one that represents an open community of developers that will build on top of an open platform. There’s a benefit in allowing apps that work with movement, and other phone native components to feed from the bluetooth connection.

Microsoft doesn’t have this same hold on the smartphone market, nor does it have a serious development community that would be willing to build smartwatch apps now that it’s starting to get a slight foothold in the smartphone development. It’s probably best they wait it out in order to solve some serious problems with their tactics — that we’ve so blatantly observed with the tablet. Decisions like mirroring the tablet off a computer vs. the phone are things that Microsoft and their UX department should try to work out before taking on a new venture. It seems like something as simple as realizing a finger isn’t as precise as a mouse would have made them go another route for the Surface, but I guess not.

Would be nice to see a level playing field in the future and not only Android or iOS powering these devices. I could se serious applications for our daily interactions that make data more predictive than manual — e.g. recording the number of reps for your workout.

I’m excited for the future of the smartwatch and count myself a proponent with my Pebble certainly doing the job for now.

I’ve been hearing a lot of trash talk and cynicism of the impending Facebook Home release on the HTC First.

I get it, change is hard to bear and to think a company that’s been focused on social for such a long time is now focusing it’s attention on a very tightly controlled market is frightening.

Yes, Facebook hasn’t had their hand in building and releasing production ready OSes (or at least modifications to OSes), but that doesn’t mean they won’t do well in the long run.

All companies entering into a new territory will face the same kind of criticism that Facebook has. It doesn’t have enough experience in a space that has serious heavy hitters from iOS to Android and even into Blackberry and WebOS. But I think we’re not giving enough credit to the massively talented development and design staff that Facebook’s been building over the years.

Even as of late, Facebook’s undergone a handful of acquisitions, not for the product, but for the talent. The acquirihire process has been seen at handfuls of technology companies as of late and to think that Facebook has any lesser of an army is foolish.

That said, I think Facebook has a chance. Here are some of my points:

1. Not only does it command serious respect around building applications on top of the Facebook web platform, it does so with a seriously lacking interface. If you’ve seen Facebook apps before, you’ll notice that they’re just iFrames of existing web properties crammed into a smaller Facebook shell. No reasonable company would want to do this and use Facebook branding around their application unless they thought it was useful. The Facebook OS would provide a platform for these developers to build on top of the phone and get application exposure in a new form factor and with access to physical hardware pieces.
2. It Disrupts Disruption. Really, I think it does. Though I haven’t had a chance to play with it personally, what it seems like it’s doing is layering multiple pieces of core FB functionality on top of the UI so that you won’t miss a beat. It’ll be interesting to see how they layer the experience across a handful of applications, but it will make transitioning back and forth and out of applications much less painful.
3. Logging in with Facebook through Connect has made access to new applications and websites so incredibly simple. Applications and companies like Spotify make this widely evident that they believe in the power of Facebook to be their sole database of users. They believed in it so much that out the gate, there was no traditional registration method, it was all through Facebook Connect. And with that, I believe it will be easier to create accounts and access new apps and access even websites through a browser more easily.