No, it really doesn't. It's a complimentary device with design limitations that will forever prevent how far it can go. Much like iPhone will never replace an actual computer, an Apple Watch will never replace a smartphone. Dependency might reduce, but it's never something you'll be entirely free from. It can't do everything and it's obviously not trying to.
It's a complimentary device right now, but I don't expect that to be the case after a few hardware (and software) revisions. Why wouldn't Apple want to sell it to
everyone who's interested in a watch rather than just existing iPhone owners? Even though there's admittedly a ton of iPhone users out there, that requirement still severely limits the sales potential of Apple Watch. Instantly eliminates hundreds of millions of potential customers.
Obviously they're not attempting to completely replace smartphones and computers, allowing basic text entry on the watch isn't exactly eliminating the need for those devices. I say give people options and let them decide what device they prefer to use. Apple allows you to read entire iBooks on your phone despite the iPad's larger screen being more ideal for that task. There's a bunch of Apple productivity apps (Keynote, Pages, Numbers, GarageBand, iMovie, etc) that were ported to iPhones despite being much better suited to desktop computers. They ported the Photos app to the Watch despite the tiny postage stamp sized screen being one of the worst possible ways to browse your photo library. But hey, it's still nice to have that option. Keyboard would be no different imo, even if it's used as an absolute last resort it'd be nice to have one.
Wow, you leave your phone on to get messages in church? That's even more ballsy than using your phone at the movies. So in this situation, the ideal/preferred solution is to wait til you're not in fucking church to answer a message, but if you must, perhaps use your phone, since it would be significantly quicker.
Church was just the most extreme example of how dictation simply doesn't work in all scenarios. Maybe you're in a quiet library or coffee shop instead. Or riding public transport. Or a loud bar/nightclub/stadium/rock concert where it'd never recognize what you were saying over all the noise. Or
any public setting that you don't want people to hear you dictating personal things. I can think of dozens of common every day scenarios where you shouldn't or just plain couldn't use dictation.
One of the biggest selling points of the watch is that you don't have to take your phone out of your pocket to see notifications and respond to texts etc. Being able to respond with more than just a pre-canned message or the often unreliable dictation would be a nice middle ground option.
Anyone interested in an Apple Watch is 90% likely to have already been interested in an ecosystem switch, since Apple Watch entices people to buy it for the same reasons that the iPhone entices people to buy it. Let's not pretend that's not true.
As for Android Wear working with iOS, Apple will keep their watch relevant with better performance and exclusive interoperability functions that Android Wear will never be able to provide to an iPhone user. Much in the same way that Apple will never be able to provide an optimal iTunes experience that matches the experience on the Mac to Windows users. It will always be below par.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's not hard to believe that someone would be interested in the Apple Watch yet perfectly happy with their current smartphone. Just like the vast majority of iPod and iPhone customers never switched to Macs.
The Apple Watch can be a device that works better with an iPhone, sure, but it shouldn't require one to function. If they keep that mindset I believe that Android Wear will smoke them. It'll be a repeat of the early iPhone years where being exclusive to a single carrier hampered their sales potential and allowed Android to gain major momentum.
