Who is a smartwatch for?

Think they look too geeky? It's not for you. Think they look too bulky and non-fashionable? It's not for you. Who is it for? Me.

When reading reviews of the current crop of smartwatches, you will find that most reviewers feel compelled to discuss how fashionable they are, and how close they look to normal watches. I believe this is wrong. A normal watch doesn't accomplish what a smartwatch does. A normal watch doesn't try to be a smartwatch. Why should a smartwatch try to be a normal watch?

I proudly wear my LG G Watch, which was well-received for the promise it showed but panned for its appearance (it is a large black slab on your wrist). To me, however, it looks great. Sure, it's a bit nerdy. Plain? Perhaps. This watch, however, replaces the calculator watch I've worn proudly on my wrist for the past 9 years. Was that equally unfashionable? Perhaps. Do I care? Not one bit.

Think back to the days when nerdy people loved their Blackberries and Palm Treos, the days when people wore large Bluetooth headsets because Bluetooth devices weren't as small as they are today. Those people, too, were "unfashionable". The fashion-conscious would scoff at these people as they whipped out their Motorola RAZRs and made calls.

Today's smartwatches are large, geeky screens that only the most tech-obsessed will attach to their wrists. If the public forces smartwatch manufacturers to conform to traditional fashion standards, there will be no revolution. Today's smartphones are neither RAZRs nor Blackberries, but they have carved out their own niche. Smartwatches, too, must be given the freedom to evolve.

Today, most people use either Android or iPhone. Many people use some sort of Bluetooth headset or handsfree in their car. Nobody thinks anything of it. Are smartwatches there yet? No. But that's just fine. Until then, the truly tech-obsessed (myself, and at least 30-40% of Engadget readership) will proudly wear our geeky smartwatches, and in 10 years everyone will wear the mainstream style.