or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Swatch CEO doesn't believe Apple's rumored 'iWatch' is next tech revolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Swatch CEO doesn't believe Apple's rumored 'iWatch' is next tech revolution - Page 2

post #41 of 109
Second Steve ballmer ?
post #42 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

While high end watch companies, for the most part, wouldn't be affected by an Apple product, Swatch, and other less expensive watch manufacturing companies would be, and he knows it.


Well, they own pretty much all of the high end watch brands in the world.

 

Not to mention Swatch doesn't play nice with others; especially if you're an American watchmaker trying to fix their stuff 1biggrin.gif

 

http://tinyurl.com/a4m7nu7

post #43 of 109

Sounds EXACTLY like what people said before the iPhone was launched - until everyone and their dog started copying it, of course... 

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
post #44 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I doubt Apple would try to replace the iPhone with a watch. Instead, I would image the watch would interact with the phone through Bluetooth or wi-fi. For instance, showing notifications, and perhaps being able to answer or place a call via the watch. It would also be cool to be able to control the music features through a watch. Controlling the phones settings through a watch, might be interesting as well.

The watch would be similar to Google's Glass in that it is a supplement or attachment to a phone.

So now there would two devices we have to keep on our person, keep track of and keep charged?  That would be a step backwards.

post #45 of 109
Swatch better prepare their lawyers for when Samsung copies the iWatch with their S-watch.
post #46 of 109
The only thing I agree with from Hayek's comments is that people who wear watches often like to change them frequently. I may wear three or four different watches each week, so it's unlikely that an Apple watch would become the only watch I wear. However, if it had a heart rate monitor built in or other features that made it useful for working out and doing cardio, it could become my "daily wear" for exercise, if it were well-designed, sturdy and didn't get in the way.
post #47 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Thanks for the good info but I disagree about the potential longterm affects of a wrist computer on the whole of the watch market. Convenience is a powerful opponent. If Swatch thinks they can keep doing what they've always done without adopting to culture and technological changes they could find themselves in the same position as many others whose names I've never heard of.

 

Unfortunately that logic does not apply to watches. If it did, quartz watches would have overwhelmed mechanical watches a long time ago. Compared to quartz watch, a mechanical watch is fragile, unreliable and inaccurate. Still, people are willing to pay huge sums of money for them. If convenience trumped everything, then why would people pay $5K-$10K for a Rolex or Omega (which, BTW is owned by the Swatch group) instead of buying a Seiko that does the job far better and costs a couple of hundred?

 

Of course, there tons more quartz watches sold than mechanical watches but the money is in mechanical watches. The Swiss make more money from watches than anyone and the vast majority of that money is from mechanical watches. Far from "adapting to culture and technological changes", the Swiss are moving away from high-tech - have been for the last 30 years! 

 

The selling point of a mechanical watch is not its technology. It is sold as a work of craftsmanship, hand made as opposed to being run off an assembly line, a piece of jewelry for the wrist, something that can passed on to the next generation as an heirloom. It is an anachronism but it has had surprisingly enduring appeal - so much so that the Japanese brands who dumped mechanical watches during the quartz revolution are looking to get back in. They are the ones who should be worried about the iWatch.

 

 - HCE

post #48 of 109
Wow Mr. Ceo. Strawman much? I don't think anyone with a brain is suggestion a smart watch would replace the iPhone. The idea is that a smart watch would be a companion to an iPhone.

Sheesh, if this is the depth of your insight, please do two things for us. 1) Shut up. 2) Don't EVER build a smart watch.
post #49 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Uh oh. Three words. Dell. Balsillie. Colligan. lol.gif

You can add Schmidt to that list. He was convinced that Apple was going to fail if it got back into the tablet market. The conventional wisdom of the pre-iPad world was that tablets were a dead market. One of my Fandroid friends even predicted iPad would be Steve Jobs' undoing.

NOW THEY USE IPADS.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #50 of 109
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post
Swatch better prepare their lawyers for when Samsung copies the iWatch with their S-watch.

 

They'd use "Galaxy Watch".

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #51 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Who said that the watch would replace the phone? I don't recall reading that anywhere.

No one said it, it's an absurd thing for this guy to have said.

 

A potential iWatch seems like it could be completely synergistic rather than a substitute of any sort.

post #52 of 109
Famous last words. Never under estimate Apple.
post #53 of 109

I don't think he really believes such a watch would be meant to replace phones.  He's just exaggerating and trying to poison the public's mind against a possible Apple watch offering.  If I were CEO of a watch company and was hearing rumors about Apple entering the market, I'd probably start spouting FUD, too. 

 

But I'd also look into partnering and brain-storming with some Android smartphone makers and developing watches that would interface/integrate with those phones.  I wouldn't let the FUD campaign be my only response.


Edited by Apres587 - 3/6/13 at 10:32am
post #54 of 109

What a joke.  We don't even know if an Apple watch exists, or if it does, what Apple's intended purpose is for it and already people are claiming it will be a failure.  I guess just like they proclaimed the iPhone and iPad would be failures. 1rolleyes.gif

post #55 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJRSV View Post

AAPL touting a watch as their next "innovative" product will be a flop. Watches are jewelry/non-essential.

What is essential is my iTV operating as my "all-things" communication & entertainment hub integrated with my vehicle interface, business terminal, etc.!!!

Who cares about a watch you can barely see? Swatch's CEO is correct on this one.

It will be interesting to watch AAPL from here. And all of their "several" interesting products come out...so far only product modification have shown up...nothing anyone, nor I "must"have at the moment. Certainly not a watch!

When did Apple say anything about a watch?  What watch product have they been "touting"? 1confused.gif

post #56 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What about band, loop, cord, or wrap?
I would think so unless there is specific wording that would exclude that from their meaning of mobile device.

 

I'm guessing "band" is the closest.  Like the Nike fuel band etc. 

post #57 of 109

Swatch can and will keep doing what they're doing; some people in this thread really don't get it. Even if Apple sell 20 million iWatches next year Swatch won't have to feel threatened. Why? They make completely different products serving completely different customers. The people Swatch care about are those who will shell out for one of their better brands, i. e. Omega, Breguet, Glashütte Original or Blancpain - we're talking prices that range from 3'000 bucks to basically whatever amount you can think of here. 

Do you guys seriously believe that somebody who's in the market for a piece of jewelry and is willing to drop about 5k or more will be distracted by an iWatch for even a second? If anything, that person will buy both, because the cost of Apple's product will be utterly insignificant by comparison. 

 

I'm wearing an Omega Aqua Terra right now and I wouldn't compare it to a smart watch in my dreams. One is an elaborate, beautiful piece of jewelry, the other is a tool that would complement my iDevices. 

post #58 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Who said that the watch would replace the phone? I don't recall reading that anywhere.

 

Here's what makes the most sense, in the long run, IMO:

  1. Apple release a small headless "radios device" containing GPS, cell radios, WiFi, BT
  2. Apple release several ancillary devices that contain additional hardware (Siri, display, kb, RAM, Storage, GPU, WiFi, BT, etc) that can be BT or WiFi tethered to the  "radios device".
  • iPod Touch
  • iPad Mini
  • iPad
  • MacBook
  • wrist display
 
Currently, Apple packages the iPod Touch with the "radios device"  into an iPhone.
 
In the Future, Apple could package the wrist display with the "radios device"  into a wearable wrist iPhone.
 
So, if you only needed/wanted basic services (phone, iPod, Internet Appliance), you could just wear the wrist iPhone.
 
If/when desired, you could carry ancillary devices (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad, MacBook) in your purse, pocket or pack) -- to give you more advanced capabilities.
 
Now, Here are the good parts:
  • Apple can release the wrist iPhone. in addition to the current line of iDevices (no one-size-fits-all or early obsolescence)
  • New buyers have the choice to buy ancillary devices with or without "radios" to suit their specific needs
  • With the wrist iPhone, users can save money on ancillary devices (no "radios" hardware needed)
  • With the wrist iPhone, users can save money on services (only 1 cell plan)

 

But, maybe the biggest benefit... the cost of entry for an Apple iPhone and the Apple ecosystem could be $150-$300 unlocked, without contract!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #59 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The CEO of a business that could be in competition with a possible new product category from Apple says that the possible new product wouldn't be a big deal. Where have we heard that before?

 

The CEO of VMWare said something similar recently about defections to Amazon's cloud computing. He said they can certainly compete against a "seller of books".

 

Ahem, whatever.

post #60 of 109

Whenever I want insight about the future of technology, I'm always sure to go to Swatch's CEO, a company I've never thought one about in my life. 

 

Seriously, why the **** is this a story here? And who the hell said Apple is planning to REPLACE their phones with a watch? Obviously they aren't. 

post #61 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

His basic mistake of course is in the assumption that a wrist based device would "replace" an iPhone, when pretty much no one has suggested it could. 

 

IMO all the swirling confusion about what this device may or may not be can be removed if you simply stop using the word "watch," and replace it with "bracelet." No one wants to do that of course because bracelet is a "girls word."  There seems to be no other word for wrist-based device of sufficient manliness than "watch."

 

How about these:  Wrist bands, Slap Bracelets and Bracelets... these are pretty manly or uni-gender.

 

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #62 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCE View Post

Unfortunately that logic does not apply to watches. If it did, quartz watches would have overwhelmed mechanical watches a long time ago. Compared to quartz watch, a mechanical watch is fragile, unreliable and inaccurate. Still, people are willing to pay huge sums of money for them. If convenience trumped everything, then why would people pay $5K-$10K for a Rolex or Omega (which, BTW is owned by the Swatch group) instead of buying a Seiko that does the job far better and costs a couple of hundred?

Of course, there tons more quartz watches sold than mechanical watches but the money is in mechanical watches. The Swiss make more money from watches than anyone and the vast majority of that money is from mechanical watches. Far from "adapting to culture and technological changes", the Swiss are moving away from high-tech - have been for the last 30 years! 

The selling point of a mechanical watch is not its technology. It is sold as a work of craftsmanship, hand made as opposed to being run off an assembly line, a piece of jewelry for the wrist, something that can passed on to the next generation as an heirloom. It is an anachronism but it has had surprisingly enduring appeal - so much so that the Japanese brands who dumped mechanical watches during the quartz revolution are looking to get back in. They are the ones who should be worried about the iWatch.

 - HCE

1) As I said, there is a long history of people making that mistake of assuming their industry is immune to any interference.

2) What is the most popular watch sold in the world and why is the most popular?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #63 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

i haven't heard about Swatch in years.  Those guys are still around?

Actually, I own a few. They still make a couple of cool, relatively inexpensive ones.

 

But their design capabilities seem to have significantly declined over the years.

 

(As an aside, people may not know this, but Swatch is, by far, the largest watch company in the world. They own a number of major luxury brands -- e.g., Omega, Blancpain, Breguet -- as well as high-end jewelry stores. They also have a chokehold on some critical watch components, as one of the biggest component suppliers to the industry. In other words, no one would be more threatened by Apple's entry into this market than Swatch).


Yes I think that's a point. Swatch doesn't compete with Omega, for example. They address totally different market segments. My secretary used to have about 20 Swatches ... different styles and colours etc, because to her it was a fashion accessory and she picked one to match her dress every day. But that was mainly because of the fact that they were CHEAP, and in fashion at the time. I wouldn't ever dream of buying an iWatch. Not because it's not possibly a fantastic device, but I have a preference for a simple analogue self-winding watch that is in its own way an engineering masterpiece. Until I lost it I had an Omega seamaster, 1949 model that I got from my dad. It worked perfectly for about 50 years, was indestructible and neither loud or gaudy ... a refined device and utterly reliable (1 Sec/month).

 

That's why the Swatch CEO is probably right. There are very differnet market segments and an iWatch won't fill the bill for all of these. Specially not if it costs a couple of hundred dollars or so. 

 

However, the design of the swatch "fashion accessory watches" is definitely not that cool any more, and they have tons of competitors in the low price range.

 

I really can't see an iWatch being a real mass market hit. But let's wait and see if and what Apple finally brings one to market.

post #64 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

I thought Apple had an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal?  Or is that just within the phone market, or just for one particular alloy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

When it was announced, it was said that Apple has a world-wide exclusive right on using LiquidMetal (the technology not a particular alloy) in "mobile devices."  I guess the key is whether a watch counts as a watch or a "mobile device."  

Both wrong. Apple has an exclusive on the use of Liquidmetal products in "consumer electronics".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/apple-liquidmetal-license_n_678591.html
IIRC, Apple paid to renew the license last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

So now there would two devices we have to keep on our person, keep track of and keep charged?  That would be a step backwards.

Maybe. OTOH, some people still wear a watch even though they have a phone. There are other reasons why it would be useful, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

When did Apple say anything about a watch?  What watch product have they been "touting"? 1confused.gif

That's an important point to keep in mind. I love seeing people talk about Apple hyping a product - when Apple has never even mentioned it. That's the problem with all these silly rumors - they acquire a life of their own and when Apple fails to commercialize every single silly idea that people come up with, the stock gets hammered.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #65 of 109

SONY already have it, it's called Smart Watch, can they sue Apple for stealing? Can they!? Apple probably would!

post #66 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltWater View Post

SONY already have it, it's called Smart Watch, can they sue Apple for stealing? Can they!? Apple probably would!

And this Sony Smart Watch is the same thing as an Apple's Ive Strong bracelet that you've never seen nor used?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #67 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) As I said, there is a long history of people making that mistake of assuming their industry is immune to any interference.

 

The point is that the iWatch and most of the Swatch Group's brands are not in the same industry! Saying that the iWatch will affect Breguet and Omega (just because they too sell watches) is as ludicrous as saying that the iWatch will affect Mercedes-Benz because all cars have clocks in them. A top-of-the-line Omega (and pretty much all Breguets) can cost as much as a car.

 

 

Quote:
2) What is the most popular watch sold in the world and why is the most popular?

 

This is precisely not the point. Citizen cells far more watches than the Swatch Group - so they are, in a sense a lot more "popular". However Citizens annual watch-related revenues are a little over a billion dollars - the Swatch Group's revenues are around 8 times as much.

 

 - HCE

post #68 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

As soon we start hearing from people who "know" an industry comment on how Apple couldn't possibly make changes to said industry we can (historically speaking) be sure Apple is going to 1) enter that industry, 2) change that industry for the betterment of the consumer, and 3) dominate that industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Who said that the watch would replace the phone? I don't recall reading that anywhere.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

You guys have to broaden your perspectives...

 

As the images below show, a wrist phone is possible..  The battery problem has been resolved, it includes a Siri-like assistant (operator), notifications, internal storage, microphone and earphone in an attractive, protective case ...

 

All that's needed is to build a wrist band for this little sucker 1smile.gif

 

 

Seriously, it was not that long ago that these were the phones that only the well-to-do (rich) could afford.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/6/13 at 11:24am
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #69 of 109
I sort of agree with him. It'll be a marginal revenue stream for Apple. But hardly the next iPod.

Watches today are fashion accessories. You don't really need one when you have a smartphone in your pocket. You wear one to accessorize. And quite a few people have several watches which they rotate depending on occassion.

And the most expensive watches? They are the ones that do nothing but tell time. You won't see smartwatches from Rolex and Tag Heuer. Nothing would devalue their brands faster.

That said, there's room for brands like Swatch (I mean their cheaper brands, not the likes of Omega) to get into the smartwatch business. Since they target younger audiences with disposable timepieces anyway.

I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of my AAPL stock. But I don't think I will be.
Edited by Jetz - 3/6/13 at 11:49am
post #70 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) As I said, there is a long history of people making that mistake of assuming their industry is immune to any interference.

2) What is the most popular watch sold in the world and why is the most popular?

 

Number 1 already happened decades ago, look up the quartz crisis. 

 

Swatch Group are doing very well by the way, luxury watches are a growth industry (and even if they weren't, there's a watchmaking tradition that spans several centuries here in Switzerland; it's a pretty robust business). 

post #71 of 109
Another 'prediction' that we'll remember?
I like Swatch
post #72 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

i haven't heard about Swatch in years.  Those guys are still around?

They've done a lot of marketing and some nice watches lately here in Europe.

post #73 of 109
The iWatch is not a watch. It will be a hardware/software solution to replace your tv. The strap is like one of those snap on bracelets that will actually be the remote control. Whether the name of the TV will be iWatch is not yet determined. (Just a theory.) It would be quite a clever cover though.
post #74 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCE View Post

The point is that the iWatch and most of the Swatch Group's brands are not in the same industry! Saying that the iWatch will affect Breguet and Omega (just because they too sell watches) is as ludicrous as saying that the iWatch will affect Mercedes-Benz because all cars have clocks in them. A top-of-the-line Omega (and pretty much all Breguets) can cost as much as a car.

Again, you can't simply that your business is insulated from all threats based on a rumour of an unknown device.

Not once have I stated that any wearable items from Apple will affect other markets I'm trying to get you to see that there is a long history of markets that have been affected by such things. The whip seller didn't think cars were an issue for his business since automobiles aren't wipes.

Imagine that Apple makes a wrist-based product that is so popular and useful that pretty much wear it all the time. Does that mean people will wear their luxury fashion system next to their now fashionable and required Apple (or any number of competitors) device, or wear it on the opposing wrist? As we've seen time and time again this happens.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #75 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonro View Post

The only thing I agree with from Hayek's comments is that people who wear watches often like to change them frequently. I may wear three or four different watches each week, so it's unlikely that an Apple watch would become the only watch I wear. However, if it had a heart rate monitor built in or other features that made it useful for working out and doing cardio, it could become my "daily wear" for exercise, if it were well-designed, sturdy and didn't get in the way.

Why do you assume that Apple wouldn't do the same thing and come up with lots of designs so that people can buy an iWatch for each day of the week? It'd be a simple thing to keep all the iWatches you own synced up with your iOS device. My prediction is iWatch will be as much a fashion accessory as a tech device. A lot of its advertising presence will be in places where Apple never used to advertise such as fashion magazines, during major city fashion weeks, etc. and aside from the usual outlets, it will be sold in boutiques and dept. store fashion counters.
post #76 of 109
To be fair, jragosta, so far it hasn't - 3DS is selling like hotcakes. They're in no trouble on that front.
post #77 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Why do you assume that Apple wouldn't do the same thing and come up with lots of designs so that people can buy an iWatch for each day of the week? It'd be a simple thing to keep all the iWatches you own synced up with your iOS device. My prediction is iWatch will be as much a fashion accessory as a tech device. A lot of its advertising presence will be in places where Apple never used to advertise such as fashion magazines, during major city fashion weeks, etc. and aside from the usual outlets, it will be sold in boutiques and dept. store fashion counters.

Imagine if Apple made a platform where vendors can build their own devices that meets specs that will interact with your iDevices. That's not unlike their program for the iPod Dock and Lightning connector programs. I'd much rather it be open source but I doubt that will happen so I'm at least wanting a program since one-size-fits-all has not shown to hold true for appeal, jewelry, or accessories.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #78 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Number 1 already happened decades ago, look up the quartz crisis. 

Swatch Group are doing very well by the way, luxury watches are a growth industry (and even if they weren't, there's a watchmaking tradition that spans several centuries here in Switzerland; it's a pretty robust business). 

:sigh How is "it's a pretty robust business" a valid retort to claims that there is nothing to worry about nor will there ever be anything to worry about.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ15vUjgqvw

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

 

You guys have to broaden your perspectives...

 

As the images below show, a wrist phone is possible..  The battery problem has been resolved, it includes a Siri-like assistant (operator), notifications, internal storage, microphone and earphone in an attractive, protective case ...

 

All that's needed is to build a wrist band for this little sucker 1smile.gif

 

 

Seriously, it was not that long ago that these were the phones that only the well-to-do (rich) could afford.

cool picture - & a design that iFixit could not complain about

post #80 of 109
"Personally, I don't believe it's the next revolution," the head of the largest Swiss watchmaker said, according to Bloomberg . "Replacing an iPhone with an interactive terminal on your wrist is difficult. You can't have an immense display."

What did I get from that? Negativity abound! 'I don't believe', 'is difficult', and 'you can't have' is precisely the same thinking that kept smartphone half screen and half plastic buttons... Until iPhone...

Which by the way, the industry leaders of their respective companies and we know who they are... laughed at the iPhone!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Swatch CEO doesn't believe Apple's rumored 'iWatch' is next tech revolution