At some point, Apple is widely expected to release a miniature computer for your wrist. Assuming the rumors pan out, you, dear geek, are going to hate whatever is released — because it's not going to do many of the things that you think such a device should do.

Your favorite tech blogs will reaffirm your skepticism by releasing scathing reports about how underwhelming Apple's newest gadget is, at least when compared against the hype they created about what Apple's newest gadget should have been. Apple will be doomed, yet again. Tim Cook's got to go! Cue the sad trombone.

Ignore all of that. An Apple watch, if it is released, is going to be a big deal. Here's why.

Fear Our Vapor!

In basketball, the mere presence of a strong defender is often enough to alter a shot and create a miss. In tech, the mere presence of a rumored Apple product is enough to alter a category and create a flurry of press releases.

No one knows what an Apple-branded watch will look like. No one knows what it'll do. We don't even know for sure that Apple is ever going to release a watch. At best, we're in "where there's smoke" territory based on ever-popular "industry sources" and a single leaked patent application.

Leading up to the release of the iPhone, similar rumors surfaced and, as usual, pundits and competitors scoffed. Here, for instance, is Palm CEO Ed Colligan scoffing his company into obsolescence:

We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.

Six years later, Apple's competitors rarely scoff, at least not as openly. Instead, they scurry to make reactionary (and premature) product announcements that exist primarily to counter a rumor mill that Apple largely ignores.

Here's Samsung, reacting:

"We’ve been preparing the watch product for so long,” Samsung Mobile executive vice president Lee Young Hee told Bloomberg. “We are preparing products for the future, and the watch is definitely one of them.”

For so long!

Samsung has to react, though. It's been stung by accusations (not to mention legal judgments) that its R&D department is based in Cupertino. Thus the rush to claim that a smartwatch is in the pipeline prior to any official Apple announcement: "We couldn't have copied Apple, we told you about our product over a year ago!"

Here's Microsoft, reacting:

Microsoft Corp. is working on designs for a touch-enabled watch device, executives at suppliers said, potentially joining rivals like Apple Inc. in working on a new class of computing products.

Microsoft also has to react. "Not reacting" is the only way to explain how they could have fallen so far behind in the mobile space and they can't afford to get left behind yet again. Steve Ballmer's got to go! Wah-waaaah.

Google's got a smart-watch patent, too:

A smart-watch can include a wristband, a base, and a flip up portion. The base can be coupled to the wristband and include a housing, a processor, a wireless transceiver, and a tactile user interface. The wireless transceiver can be configured to connect to a wireless network. The tactile user interface can be configured to provide interaction between a user and the smart-watch. The flip up portion can be displaceable between an open position exposing the base and a closed position concealing the base. Further, the flip up portion can include: a top display exposed when the flip up portion is in the closed position, and an inside display opposite the top display. The inside display can be concealed when the flip up portion is in the closed position and be exposed when the flip up portion is in the open position.

Google's clearly in a better position than Samsung and Microsoft (and Apple, for that matter) in that it's already demoing wearable computing. But Google Glass is far from a guaranteed winner — we may all be cross-eyed this time next year — and prepping a watch, even as a backup, seems like a smart way for the company to hedge its bets.

What A Coincidence

Now, raise your hand if you think it's a coincidence that we're just now learning about all these smartwatches just as rumors of an "iWatch" started to heat up. No takers?

The mere specter of an Apple watch — summoned by the ritualistic voodoo of rumors and speculation — spooked Apple's competitors into action. Clearly, they're not quite as cocky as they used to be. (Or, as in the case of Palm, as in business as they used to be.)

There's a lot of talk these days about Apple having died with Steve Jobs, but I sure don't see Google Glass spurring similarly reactionary competitive product announcements. By that standard, at least, Apple's in pretty good shape.

That said, Apple remains Apple. It'll release the watch it'll release, when it releases it. If, uh, it releases one at all. Which brings us back to why I think Apple is, in fact, going to launch a smartwatch.

First and foremost, a watch isn't much of a stretch for Apple from a product standpoint, especially if you're expecting a wrist-borne iPod rather than an offshoot of the iPhone or iPad.

IPod sales are declining, yes, but the brand remains iconic. It won't surprise me at all if Apple simply calls this thing an iPod Watch. (Consider that Apple used to sell a square iPod Nano that everyone treated like a watch.) Similar to the Apple TV, an iPod Watch could run an offshoot of iOS, but not full-fledged iPhone apps.

The Watch Built for Homer

Neither Apple nor Google seems likely to release a watch that looks anything like what we've seen in the paperwork they've filed. That doesn't mean there aren't clues in their patents to what they might one day ship.

Google's watch description sounds an awful lot like what it's now demoing as Google Glass. It's futuristic, it's full of gee-whiz wonderments and augmented reality, and it'll probably do your dishes for you — or maybe advertise local maid services as soon as it Big Brothers that you're washing your own dishes.

That pretty much sums up Google and, let's face it, most of Apple's competitors: "If nothing else, a device can always do more."

Would-be iPod killers had FM radios and Bluetooth music sharing and gigantic cup holders and anything else some consumer once said he'd like to have in a survey or on a web forum, once, somewhere. Would-be iPhone killers had hardware keyboards and 3D screens and styluses and a bunch of other junk no one wanted until, eventually, they just gave in and became "essentially iPhones" with an "all sizes and prices fits all" mentality.

But what about Apple?

The current landscape for smartwatches is, thus far, fairly niche-based: Athletes and, well, athletes wear them. Sometimes.

But look at us. We aren't athletes. We don't spend a lot of our time counting our steps and monitoring our heartbeats, so we're not going to buy a device that exists to do those things.

Pebble has seen some success with its Kickstarter campaign for a multi-purpose, e-paper smartwatch, but who knows if the company is equipped to compete over the longer term. More likely, its offering will serve as a proof-of-concept for the big guys.

That leaves a lot of wrist real-estate for Apple, especially given that most of us aren't even wearing dumb watches anymore. Who needs something that only tells the time, especially when our smartphones do that so well?

Glance and Go

Think about iOS notifications for a moment. (Yes, they suck hard. But that's a discussion for another day.) If the entire point of a notification is to increase efficiency by providing an opportunity to ignore the things that we'd rather ignore, why should we have to get our phone out to make that decision?

Wouldn't it be better to glance down at our wrist? To leave the phone in our pocket until we really need it?

More importantly, wouldn't Apple want us to glance at a device made by Apple, running software sold via Apple's App Store, and linked to services controlled by Apple?

This is the part where the geeks get indignant and demand that Apple release something that is more than just an accessory, but I don't see any reason to believe that Apple will (or needs to) introduce something more than that.

Tied to an iPhone, an iPad, and your Apple TV, a smartwatch adds value to Apple's existing hardware ecosystem and, most importantly, it won't exist as an "either/or" proposition for consumers.

We'll simply buy all of the above if we want the full Apple experience.

Apple's Extended Family

Consider that iPhone accessories alone are a multi-billion-dollar industry.

Even with the understanding that most of that money goes to the accessory makers, it's clear that Apple plays the accessory game better than just about any other company. Anyway, the mind-share that such exposure buys makes up for any lack of revenue.

When Apple introduced the second generation iPad, it also developed a magnet-based mechanism that paved the way for the Smart Cover and countless knock-offs that line store shelves today. With a watch, the strap is the case: Expect Apple to design (and patent) an easily removable "Smart Strap" that clicks on and off. Now imagine countless booths at next year's CES, lined with iPod Watch straps and accessories.

Software developers won't be left out: An SDK will be released and they'll rush to create added value widgets that extend the functionality of their iPhone and iPad apps.

Apple's watch may not transform us into latter-day Dick Tracys, but developers and accessory makers will stick with Apple and extend the brand in spite of all the crap they'll have to put up with along the way. Because they're going to follow the money.

Billions of dollars a year is a pretty easy trail to follow.

Apple Wins Again

In the end, Apple will release a product that looks great and works like it's supposed to, even if it's not exactly what we expect, or think we want, out of a smartwatch. And we'll buy it.

The peripheral market for accessories will quickly materialize, at which point the competition, left dumbfounded, will be forced to go back to the drawing board in an effort to mimic Apple's vision of wrist-based computing. In a few years, you'll either be wearing Apple's smart watch, or something remarkably similar to Apple's smart watch.

Not long after that, some anonymous commenter sporting a Samsung Galaxy W will feel clever and point out that Apple didn't really do anything all that revolutionary.

Just you watch.

Top image via a 2010 iWatch concept video by ADR Studio

I want a smartwatch. Not just because I am a gadget nerd or because owning one will be, more or less, a professional requirement. I want one because I see the potential of having a data connected device on my arm with a variety of sensors provides extraordinary value… if done right.

That is the kicker – Done Right. The danger with the coming smartwatch revolution is that the various vendors vying to dominate this new market may try to do what is right for them and not necessarily what is right for consumers. That means creating proprietary ecosystems that don't work together across platforms.

Smartwatches Shouldn't Need Smartphones

A watch, almost by definition, is a closed loop (otherwise it might fall off your wrist). That doesn’t mean a smartwatch should be a closed loop, too.

Smartwatches are going to be a big deal: Apple appears to have the iWatch, Google looks like it has a smartwatch and Samsung is working its magic on a watch as well. 

Google Watch Patent Picture And they all want you to stay immersed in their own competing environments. If you are using iOS, Apple is doing everything it can to make sure you mate the iWatch to your iPhone and iPad and even your Mac. Samsung has developed its latest Galaxy S4 flagship smartphone to heavily integrate its own custom-built apps, often instead of similar apps made by Google for Android. Google itself is more interested in getting you online and using Google apps like Gmail, Talk, Maps and so on.

This is a classic defintion of a closed loop (sometimes also referred to as a "walled garden"). Everything happens with the environment - there is no reason to leave the loop and outsiders are usually not welcome.

Dictionary.com defines a "closed loop" this way:

“The complete path followed by a signal as it is fed back from the output of a circuit, device, or system to the input and then back to the output.”

When it comes mobile operating systems like iOS or Android, the user is the signal. 

There is a very real danger that Apple, Google and Samsung will include their new smartwatches in their own proprietary loops. For instance, you won't get the full benefits of an iWatch without using an iPhone, a Google Watch will be suboptimal unless your have a Nexus smartphone or a Samsung Watch will require a Galaxy to access all its features. 

The Ideal Smartwatch

Apple Watch Patent But the ideal smartwatch would not need a smartphone to work. It would have its own data connection, touch-screen interface, sensors to track location and (hopefully) sensors to monitor heart rate and other biometric functions. It would have Bluetooth if you want to connect it to wireless headphones or, yes, a smartphone. It would also have enough battery life to last at least a full day.

I want to be able to ride my bicycle 60 miles on a Saturday morning, for example, and have my smartwatch track my speed, location and heart rate. It should be able to stream or store music and send it to headphones. It should do all of these things by itself - without requiring help from another device. If I am on my bike in the middle of nowhere, I do not want to be toting my phone too. 

The only “real” smartwatch on the market right now is the Pebble - born from a Kickstarter project. It can do many of the tasks listed above, but it needs to be paired with a smartphone for a data connection. At least the Pebble can attach to either an iPhone or an Android.

Closing The Loop

Apple could be planning to make a smartwatch without a data connection, requiring an iPhone full functionality. Substitute Nexus or Galaxy for iPhone and yous ee the problem. Buyers should not be forced towards a specific smartphone to use a given smartwatch. It should just work.

The vendors, though, want to use smartwatches to sell more smartphones. That's OK - up to a point. I don't mind the ability to enhance my smartwatch by using a specific brand of smartphone. I just don't want it to be a requirement.

It's no doubt very tempting for smartwatch vendors to "close the loop" on consumers. But please, for the sake of smartwatch buyers - and ultimately the smartwatch market itself - don't do it!

Top image courtesy Shutterstock.

If you think we're hooked on social status updates now, just wait. As connected computing starts to shift from our pockets to wearable devices like Google Glass and Apple's rumored iWatch, the flood of messages and bite-sized digital content is going to become even more relentless. 

Just like smartphones, these devices will have a transformative impact on things like communication, navigation and productivity. But some are concerned that, like their pocket-sized counterparts, wearables could increase our reliance on technology in unhealthy ways. 

The First Step: Admitting We Have A Problem

It's now beyond debate that owners of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets often exhibit something resembling an addiction to those gadgets. It may not be as serious as something like alcohol or crystal meth, but it's a type of dependence nonetheless. Sure, some of the press coverage of this topic may be overblown, but the science supporting the existence of widespread smartphone addiction keeps piling up. If that's not convincing enough, just look around.  

A few weeks ago, I was waiting for a table in a crowded restaurant. As I sat on the bench, I couldn't help but notice the scene next to me: An entire family - mother, father and three kids - were all sitting in total silence, each of them staring intently into little glowing screens. Not once over the course of several minutes did any of them look up from their devices or say a word. Of course, I only noticed this family of smartphone zombies because, for once, I wasn't glued to my own phone.

Scenes like this are incredibly common these days. Sometimes, they're short-lived and innocent. In some cases, relationships, productivity and mental health can become strained. Evidently, we haven't yet figured out how to best fit these amazing little computers into our lives. While we've had no trouble discovering all kinds of beneficial uses for them, many of us have a hard time knowing when not to use them.

What makes us think we're prepared to wear computers on our faces and wrists? 

That's precisely the question some psychologists are asking. Larry Rosen is a research psychologist at California State University and author of iDisorder, a book about the psychological impacts of technology, particularly as our reliance on it increases. 

"We are already so distractible, checking in with our technology all day long," says Dr. Rosen. "When we don't have to reach into our pockets or our purses, we will be even more enmeshed and face even more obsession and compulsion." 

With wearable devices, checking messages and updates not only becomes physically easier, but it will also be less noticeable to those around us. For human beings, pulling a small rectangle-shaped device out of our pockets and interacting with it is a relatively new behavior. Looking down at our watches is not, and thus it's less conspicuous. Sure, it would still be obvious and unusual if I were to look at my watch dozens of times in an hour, not to mention periodically swipe its touch screen. But by even slightly reducing the physical barrier to interacting with the digital world, we're ensuring we'll do it more.  

Mainlining The Internet Directly Into Our Eyeballs

Head-mounted computers are a little different. For one, they're not intended for everybody. Not yet, anyway. When Google Glass first hits the market, we'll know (and probably disapprove) if somebody is wearing it at the dinner table. Early Glass users won't be able to use them whenever and wherever they please. But when they do use it, they'll be developing new digital habits. Instead of compulsively checking Facebook on their phones, they'll be able to mainline status updates and notifications directly into their eyeballs. 

For awhile, the obvious design of products like Glass will limit their use, and thus curtail whatever disruptive effects they might have. But what happens when head-mounted computers become more seamlessly designed into normal glasses frames? Eventually, we'll have connected contact lenses. Hopefully we'll have enough time before their arrival to figure out some of the glaring social and psychological issues these technologies raise. 

In the meantime, there's plenty to be excited about. As Sarah Rotmann Epps outlined recently, wearable devices can be hugely beneficial to our lives, especially if they're designed with our brains' limitations in mind.  And while Google Glass raises a number of weird social questions, there are lots of very compelling use cases for the device. 

It's like any major advance in technology: There are going to be issues. The tech is going to evolve more rapidly than laws, etiquette or certainly the human brain itself. The era of wearable computing is coming regardless of how ready we are.  

We've known for some time that Apple's rumored "iWatch" appears to be a real concept, with patent filings that suggest a device completely distinct from the already watch-like 6th-gen iPod Nano. A report from Bloomberg this morning adds a few details — namely that the product is being headed up by Apple design guru Jony Ive, who's reportedly long been obsessed with smart watches since at least the mid-2000s, when he supposedly ordered boxes of Nike sports watches for his design team to play around with.

The Verge's Nilay Patel chimed in with a report that the iWatch will run a modified version of iOS, not a beefed up version of the Nano's touch OS. That certainly sounds likely, given that Apple designed iOS from the ground up for the initial iPhone instead of simply updating the iPod OS. 

(See also: Who's Manipulating Apple Stock With This iWatch Story?)

Whether or not all that really tells us much about Apple's vision for the iWatch is another question entirely. Apple could be aiming for a device that performs a wide array of phone functions, with a smartphone in the pocket as the backup. Alternatively, it might still be taking a stripped-down Bluetooth approach, in which the smartwatch will only work in tandem with an iPhone and perform simple functions, like receiving notifications and checking emails and texts.

A more capable smartwatch, however, must also clear the hurdle of battery life. The Pebble smartwatch promises a week between charges, though it's a fairly simple device compared to the claims being made for the iWatch. And Apple may be having difficulty making an iWatch with even a 4-5 day battery life, as The Verge's Patel reports that the current prototype lasts only "a couple [of] days max."

Crippling battery drain would present a huge problem should Apple be hoping to dominate the much-talked-about segment of wearable devices. That's a market Google is already clearly targeting with its projected release of its augmented-reality Glass device.

Apple is working on a smart watch. Any lingering doubts about that notion took a further hit yesterday when a patent filing for such a device surfaced, adding more fuel to an already frenzied fire of speculation. 

According to the filing, Apple has conceived a watch-like device with a flexible, touchscreen display and the ability to connect to other devices (like your iPhone) via a wireless protocol, probably Bluetooth 4. There's been plenty of unsourced speculation about what the so-called iWatch would do. In the patent, Apple chimes in and specifically mentions reviewing recent calls, editing playlists, receiving text messages and using maps. Other details in the filing point to the use of solar and kinetic energy to help power the watch, which will undoubtedly require far more energy than your old Casio calculator watch. 

See the drawings from Apple's patent filing below.

The patent filing describes a "wearable video device" that functions just like the slap bracelets that were popular among kids in the early 1990s:

In a first equilibrium position they can be flat. The second equilibrium is typically reached by slapping the flat embodiment across the wrist, at which point the bracelet curls around the wrist and stays relatively secure in a roughly circular position.

The History of the iWatch Rumor

The patent is just the latest evidence that Cupertino plans to move into wearable computing via our wrists, rather than starting with something more intrusive like glasses, as Google is doing. The Apple watch rumor first started coming together last August when a report surfaced pointing to a possible Bluetooth 4 link between the iPhone 5 and a future generation iPod Nano. The watch connection was a bit of a stretch, but visions of a Dick Tracey-esque future got people excited nonetheless. 

The whole thing really started firming up a few weeks ago, when Nick Bilton wrote that "Apple is experimenting with wristwatch-like devices make of curved glass" that runs iOS.  Citing multiple anonymous sources, Bilton said that Apple is actively testing a device that doesn't sound all that different from what this patent describes. 

Of course, companies like Apple have patents filed for all kinds of things, many of which never see the light of day. But a move toward wearable computing clearly makes sense, especially as one of Apple's chief competitors in the mobile space is very publicly planning to launch its own futuristic accessory next year. 

Between Bilton's reporting and the details in the patent filing, it seems highly likely that a smart watch is on the horizon for Apple. As for exactly when such a product will drop, that's anybody guess. But expect the Apple rumor mill to keep churning on this one. 

Here are a few figures from Apple's patent filing:

Cross sectional view of a robust accessory device Perspective views of both bi-stable spring states of an accessory device Perspective views of both bi-stable spring states of an accessory device

Every time the Apple iWatch rumor comes around, I can't help but get excited. It's not just the Dick Tracy childhood nostalgia that so many of us seem to share, although that's certainly part of it. I hope Apple is really building an iOS-integrated smart watch not just because it's futuristic, but because I want to tinker with my phone less. And I hope the iWatch is just the beginning helping me do that. 

Apple's rumored foray into wearable computing fits nicely into the popular narrative suggesting that's where the future lies. We appear poised to start moving beyond gadgets and toward a world in which operating systems and voice-controlled artificial intelligence are woven into our homes, cars and lives. 

Why A Smartwatch Makes Sense

Wearable, connected devices are a natural next-step in that evolution. As Nick Bilton points out, a smart watch will be a much easier sell for everyday consumers than the cyborg-esque augmented reality glasses Google will soon be hawking. Apple has patents and plans for head-mounted displays too, but a watch is a much more natural place to start with wearables targeted to a mass market. 

With our smart watches, we'll be able to get important notifications, send and receive messages and return basic information from search engines without pulling a small electronic brick from our pockets and hiding our faces behind them. It's why early reviews of the Pebble smartwatch say it "changes the entire dynamic of being connected." 

The Pebble is a good start, but its interface is grayscale and low-res and its iOS integration remains very limited. I'm counting on Apple to produce a far more polished, better-integrated wristwatch, complete with curved glass and its usual atttention to visual detail. 

Smart, Connected Objects Galore

While they're at it, I hope the Apple iWatch team is looking into how to bake iOS into any number of other non-smartphone, non-tablet devices. They're already working with car manufacturers to tighten dashboard and steering wheel integrations. That's wise considering that soon every new car will be Internet-connected.  And of course there's the longstanding speculation about a voice-controlled smart HDTV. Apple should push forward with cars and TVs, but it should take iOS much further than that. 

For example, I'd love an inexpensive, lower-power tablet - perhaps with one of those flexible displays everyone's so excited about - that  I can hang on my kitchen wall to conveniently display my calendar, a Photo Stream, to-do items from Reminders and a simple notepad. All of it should be synced online with my other, more multi-functional devices. Perhaps it will one day talk to my connected, grocery-aware refrigerator. 

In other rooms, we could have interfaces geared toward context-relevant tasks. Again, all of it will be synced via iCloud with a version of Siri that has evolved into something like Nuance's cross-device voice-control project called Wintermute (but even better). Sure, we'll likely still have one or two central, more powerful computers, but they will be supplemented by various gadgets, appliances and connected surfaces throughout the home, office and wherever.  

Of course, when I say Apple, I really mean Apple, Google, Microsoft and whoever else wants to push these things along. Apple seems best positioned to polish futuristic concepts with a shine that will entice even techno-phobes, whereas Google could push the envelope with some truly geeky, innovative concoctions. 

Beyond The Smartphone

Tablets and (especially) smartphones have begun to change so much about our day-to-day lives, but their form factors often make for a somewhat awkward integration into our worlds. At home, we carry a tablet from room to room, its purpose changing each time we cross a new doorway. Everywhere else, we have to kepp pulling the tiny computers out of our pockets to complete all kinds of tasks. Quite often, we're just checking for the notifications our brains have been conditioned to expect, tuning out our physically present friends and family in the process.

A lot of us are looking forward to connected this future that relies less on the kinds of gadgets we lust after today, but is nonetheless more connected than ever - the network is just woven into our lives more seamlessly. Projects like Google Glass and iWatch promised to be some of the first and most important steps toward that. Hopefully we won't look too goofy in our cyborg goggles or talking to our wrists. 

Stock manipulation!

That was the cry from Apple fanbloggers last month when the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple had reduced component orders, a possible sign of softening demand for Apple products. That story broke nine days before Apple was to report its earnings, and sent the stock reeling downward.

But if that was the case, then who’s manipulating Apple stock now, with this sudden barrage of “leaks” about the iWatch?

Does no one else think it’s kind of remarkable that this unreleased product suddenly starts showing up in dozens of blog posts and press stories? And that these leaks happened, coincidentally, right after Apple’s stock endured a brutal slide from just above $700 in September to a low of $435 in January?

The last stock plunge took place after Apple reported disappointing earnings for the holiday quarter, and ended up treading water in the $450 range. That was Jan. 28.

Note what happens next. On Feb. 5, the Wall Street Journal reports that after taking a beating on Wall Street, Apple has been “subtly increasing some of its PR,” doing things like sending reporters “more favorable third-party reports on the company.”

In other words: Apple wanted to get the stock back up, and so its flacks were reaching out to reporters and briefing them on background, trying to convince them that things at Apple were better than what Wall Street believed.

(See also Apple May Not Have A Choice But To Release A Watch, by Matt Asay)

Anatomy Of A Pump

Meanwhile, just as Apple’s flacks have started working the phones, we start to hear drumbeats about a miraculous new product. Wow! What a coincidence.

And what is this product? Why, it's an amazing, life-changing, paradigm-shifting, stolen-from-the-future gorgeously designed product, a product that you've always wanted and needed though you never thought about it before, a product that will once again put Apple ahead of everyone else: The iWatch.

Bits and pieces about Apple doing a watch have been floating around since at least last year. But suddenly, in the past few weeks, just as Apple has started briefing reporters, this story starts heating up.

It begins with things like this post on Jan. 30 by MG Siegler of TechCrunch. Siegler, who basically operates as an unpaid Apple PR guy, says he’s getting a Pebble smartwatch, and then on goes for a couple thousand words about how huge this whole smartwatch thing could be and boy does he want one and man wouldn’t a smartwatch just change everything and wow, I bet Apple and Google are looking at this space, don’t you?

Then on Feb. 5 comes this even more incredibly overlong piece by Bruce Tognazzini, a former Apple interface designer, who suddenly, for no apparent reason, feels prompted to wax on for thousands and thousands of words about all the amazing things that Apple’s iWatch (he’s already given it a name and says it “will fill a gaping hole in the Apple ecosystem”) might do.

The Story Goes Mainstream

Then, on Sunday, the drumbeats turned into something more, when two major newspapers both ran iWatch stories.

One scoop came from Jessica Lessin at the Wall Street Journal, the same reporter who wrote about Apple doing more briefings with reporters. (Weird, right?) Another scoop came from Nick Bilton at the New York Times, whose story ran online on Sunday and then had a nice big spot on the front of Monday morning’s Times business section.

A big section-front story on a Monday morning in the New York Times! What fortuitous timing! You’d almost think it had been planned. Bilton’s story cited as sources “people familiar with the company’s explorations, who spoke on condition that they not be named because they are not allowed to publicly discuss unannounced products.” Wonder who that could be?

And what is the significance of the iWatch? “Investors would most likely embrace an iWatch,” Bilton writes, “with some already saying that wearable computing could replace the smartphone over the next decade.”

Ah, yes. Investors. Mustn’t forget them. Ahem.

Bilton even got an interview with the CTO of Corning Glass Technologies, the company that supplies Apple with glass for the iPhone. The Corning guy doesn’t talk specifically about making a watch, but he says that it could be done. What’s noteworthy here is that this is one of Apple’s big suppliers talking to the press, on the record, about something that brushes up against Apple. If you know anything about Apple you know that this doesn’t happen without Apple’s permission. Don’t believe me? Go try to get an interview with Foxconn, about anything, and see if they’ll do it without Apple’s permission.

And We’re Off

So now we’re off to the races. As the Atlantic Wire points out, when the Journal and the Times both run the same story within hours of each other, “The Apple iWatch Rumors Just Became Apple iWatch Reports.”

The story has been everywhere. Huffington Post, CBS, ABC. Everywhere. We’ve even seen photos of what it might look like, long descriptions of all the amazing features it might have, and all the problems it might solve. You won’t need passwords! It will have an NFC chip so you can buy stuff with it. It will be a TV remote. It will give you driving directions. It will tell you who’s calling on your phone, and send you reminders.

But why is Apple leaking this story now? Philip Elmer-Dewitt of Fortune picks up on the timing and has five theories:

1. To distract people from Google Glass
2. To boost Apple’s stock price
3. To deflect attention from iTV, which isn’t ready yet
4. To deflect attention from the story about Wall Street demanding Apple distribute some of its huge cash stash
5. To lower expectations about what an iWatch may do.

All great theories. I’ll go with the stock price, thanks.

Guess What, It’s Working

Oh, and gosh, look what’s been going on with the stock price in the last 11 days. Why, since bottoming out below $440 on Feb. 4, the stock has been climbing and climbing. Just today it’s up more than $7 to $482 — on the basis of a product that as far as anyone knows does not actually exist, and might never exist.

Oh, and goodness me, but today we’re also getting a fresh leak about the iPhone 5S, with photos and everything!

All those fanbloggers who were screaming about stock manipulation last month? It takes one to know one, I guess.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.