or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple applies for 'iWatch' trademark in Mexico and Taiwan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple applies for 'iWatch' trademark in Mexico and Taiwan

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Following news of Apple's "iWatch" trademark filing in Japan, identical applications were made public in Mexico and Taiwan on Monday, adding to the mounting pile of reports pointing to the company's possible entry into the wearable computing device market.

iWatch
Artist's rendition of purported Apple smartwatch. | Source: Yrving Torrealba


Like the Japan filing, Apple requested protection of the "iWatch" moniker in Mexico and Taiwan on June 3, just two days prior to yet another application in Russia. All requests pertain to computing hardware or, more specifically, portable computing devices.

Included in of the filing with Mexico's Institute of Industrial Property, as first discovered by 9to5Mac, Apple includes a basic graphic of the name, which reads "IWATCH" in bold block letters. Also noted in the document is Apple's name and address at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino, though the application was lodged by a local law firm.

iWatch
Graphic included in Apple's Mexican "iWatch" trademark application.


According to a separate report by MacRumors, the Taiwan filing also bears the same graphic and notes Apple's name and California headquarters.

While there has yet to be any "leaks" surrounding the supposed device, many reports cite insiders as saying Apple is hard at work on the "iWatch" project. Also unknown is what form the purported device will take, though most believe it will look like an advanced wristwatch.

AppleInsider was first to discover a U.S. Apple patent filing in February for a wearable computing device that boasted a flexible touchscreen fitted to a bendable bracelet.

Due to cost and the current state of technology, such a design is unlikely to appear anytime soon, though the technical features detailed by the invention could make it into a possible first-generation product.

Other tech companies like Apple rival Samsung have already announced that they will be rolling out "smart watch" products later in 2013. With the exception of Google Glass, the head-mounted augmented reality "glasses" device, most are believed to be wrist-worn.

Most recently, Apple's partner manufacturer Foxconn announced it will debut an iPhone-compatible smart watch this year, complete with biometric data sensors and low-level remote control features.
post #2 of 45

I'd better register iWatch in Zimbabwe quick.

 

I can't really see an iWatch like the one shown take off if only because it seems so anachronistic to strap a piece of tech onto your wrist. Maybe if they can embed it into a tattoo, it may work.

post #3 of 45
Why has Apple not applied earlier? I wonder if there aren't others who've patented this name to make ready coin from Apple.

Or is this name intended for something other than a wristwatch, as others have speculated?

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

I'd better register iWatch in Zimbabwe quick.

 

I can't really see an iWatch like the one shown take off if only because it seems so anachronistic to strap a piece of tech onto your wrist. Maybe if they can embed it into a tattoo, it may work.

Here's Apple patent filing for "iWatch."  You can read all about it;

 

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html

post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhikl View Post

Or is this name intended for something other than a wristwatch, as others have speculated?

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. Successor to the AppleTV?? It may include a wearable iPod/Remote with microphone and built in Siri for AppleTV as well as the accelerometer, gyroscope, etc for games.
post #6 of 45

I don't like that the artist's rendition of an "iWatch" is being shown, because it looks really bad, IMO. The article would be better with no image, and people would just have to use their imagination for a change, since I don't think that anybody knows exactly what the supposed "iWatch" is going to look like or when it's coming out. I just hope that it looks nothing like that stupid looking rendition.

 

Apple needs to change the game completely again, otherwise don't even bother making it. The iWatch had better be so damn cool looking and have some really incredible features, so that when it is finally revealed, people will be like "damn!, I need one of those!".

post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji View Post

Here's Apple patent filing for "iWatch."  You can read all about it;

 

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html

 

Yeah, I have no doubt that they will design one internally and to quite a lot of work on it, if only to work out the type of things that they may need to patent. This is a luxury afforded a company with limitless resources. 

 

Nevertheless it is my opinion that tech that straps to your wrist, (unless it enables you to fly) is a non starter other than tiny niche markets for runners and the like. Especially with iPods and iPhones getting more clever and compact. You are always going to want a decent sized (read iPhone size) screen in your pocket and that object will do whatever a strap on wrist device will do. Thats how I see it.

 

The iWatch will be like the portable DAT recorder if it were ever made. A strange amalgamation of digital and analog, neither fish nor fowl. I'm sure that others will beat Apple to it thinking that they have got one over Apple by getting it to market first but it's a red herring.

post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

 

Yeah, I have no doubt that they will design one internally and to quite a lot of work on it, if only to work out the type of things that they may need to patent. This is a luxury afforded a company with limitless resources. 

 

Nevertheless it is my opinion that tech that straps to your wrist, (unless it enables you to fly) is a non starter other than tiny niche markets for runners and the like. Especially with iPods and iPhones getting more clever and compact. You are always going to want a decent sized (read iPhone size) screen in your pocket and that object will do whatever a strap on wrist device will do. Thats how I see it.

 

The iWatch will be like the portable DAT recorder if it were ever made. A strange amalgamation of digital and analog, neither fish nor fowl. I'm sure that others will beat Apple to it thinking that they have got one over Apple by getting it to market first but it's a red herring.

 

I'm not sure I totally agree with you but I worry about the same thing.  Unless this hypothetical product has all kinds of aspects that we don't yet know about, it seems certain that it's a niche product at best.  I know I have no use for any of it's purported functions and I'm sure large numbers of other people are in the same boat as well.  

 

I'm most surprised at the "iWatch" name if it's true that they are going with it.  It suggests a hugely popular generic, category destroying item in the same way as 'iPhone" did, but while everyone needs a phone or portable computer of some kind and it's uses are many, I just can't see that any more than a few percent of the populace needs an "iWatch."  

 

Most people don't wear wrist watches.  

Most people don't give a crap about how many steps they walk or what their heart rate is.  

 

I can see the value of moving Siri our of your pocket and onto your wrist, but again, most people just don't use Siri that much that it's necessary.  

Most people also don't get enough notifications to make having them appear on your wrist worthwhile either.  

 

The whole thing is worrisome to me.  Feels like it's too early or perhaps simply a mistake.  

post #9 of 45
The hypothetical (yet valid) game: wristwatch or AppleTV?

What if iWatch is intended to be the television set everyone thinks Apple is coming out with -- and Apple has fooled the entire world (publishers, consumers, investors/analysts, etc) that iWatch is a wristwatch by feeding/leaking out false information to toss everyone a curve ball once the TV comes out?

- Apple is secretive
- Apple thought outside the box acquiring the iPad trademark
- Apple has outlets to leak false information to create distraction
- Apple must shock the world yet again to pump life into the stock [darn you WallStreet!]

My guess: It's a big question mark that I love reading about. :-)
post #10 of 45
Right now I am rather reminded of that "iSlate.com" smokescreen Apple put up to fool Ballmer into presenting a completely unusable "HP Slate PC" hastily before Apple finally revealed the iPad, ignoring all that "slate" nonsense completely.

Calling whatever wearable device "iWatch" would imply that its primary function is being a watch. I can't really believe that. It might wrap around the wrist, but it certainly won't be a watch first.
post #11 of 45
Registering a trade mark does result a product launch. May be it's just a protection of the Apple branded "i". May be that's all.

I would not be so enthusiastic
post #12 of 45
Let's watch the watch race. Bring out the popcorn!!

I've got this feeling the smart watch frenzy in the industry that we're seeing now got started with a rumor from Apple. And everybody was like "Crap, we better not miss the train like we did with the iPhone. Let's all make smart watches."

A friend of mine is running this wristwatch online store, making serious money. There's high demand. But most customers buy fun, retro, luxurious style watches. A one-design-fits-all might not be what people would strap on at a mass scale, since a bracelet is really something most people, I assume, would like to reflect on your personal style.

Another question is charging.. How would you charge it? The moment you need to take it off and plug it in is the moment it'll flop. Yet a freaking charger?? It better be inductive charging or sun charging this time. But sun charging over night might prove difficult..
I'll stop now. I'm just eager to see what comes out of this :-)
post #13 of 45
They should have kept the original name: iPod Nano (6th generation).

"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 #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

I'm not sure I totally agree with you but I worry about the same thing.  Unless this hypothetical product has all kinds of aspects that we don't yet know about, it seems certain that it's a niche product at best.  I know I have no use for any of it's purported functions and I'm sure large numbers of other people are in the same boat as well.  

 

I'm most surprised at the "iWatch" name if it's true that they are going with it.  It suggests a hugely popular generic, category destroying item in the same way as 'iPhone" did, but while everyone needs a phone or portable computer of some kind and it's uses are many, I just can't see that any more than a few percent of the populace needs an "iWatch."  

 

Most people don't wear wrist watches.  

Most people don't give a crap about how many steps they walk or what their heart rate is.  

 

I can see the value of moving Siri our of your pocket and onto your wrist, but again, most people just don't use Siri that much that it's necessary.  

Most people also don't get enough notifications to make having them appear on your wrist worthwhile either.  

 

The whole thing is worrisome to me.  Feels like it's too early or perhaps simply a mistake.  

Think about all the senior population in the world. How many of them? In China alone it is 200 million people. I'm sure in US, Europe and Japan it is about the same percentage-wise. Now if all these people could have a computer on their wrists to help monitor and report their health. How big a market is that?

post #15 of 45
tricky Apple... a clever name for a TV Monitor...
post #16 of 45

Wrist watch makes no sense of whatsoever... If any accessory, it should be better bluetooth earphones with mic. THere is nothing Siri couldn't let me know over earphones that I would need to look on some iWatch. Such device is actually step back. We don't wear watches anymore. Only people having few thousand Euro watches are wearing them. They are of no practical use anymore. Why forcing people to start old habits all over again?

post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quazze View Post

The hypothetical (yet valid) game: wristwatch or AppleTV?

What if iWatch is intended to be the television set everyone thinks Apple is coming out with -- and Apple has fooled the entire world (publishers, consumers, investors/analysts, etc) that iWatch is a wristwatch by feeding/leaking out false information to toss everyone a curve ball once the TV comes out?

- Apple is secretive
- Apple thought outside the box acquiring the iPad trademark
- Apple has outlets to leak false information to create distraction
- Apple must shock the world yet again to pump life into the stock [darn you WallStreet!]

My guess: It's a big question mark that I love reading about. :-)

Another option would be Apple has no planned iWatch product and is playing to all the iWatch rumors. Apple files trademark requests, at little cost ,slowly in major markets to feed the rumor so it distracts or sidetracks the competition into wasting resources developing their version of an iWatch.

 

Another could be that the iWatch hype is way off on what it will have for features and what it will do. The slow or leaked trademark filings are meant to encourage other companies to release their version to 'beat' Apple to the market. Three to six months or more later Apple releases their iWatch and revolutionizes another product category.

 

If IWATCH turns out to be the rumored TV product that would stun all the companies planning to compete with Apple's rumoured wrist based iWatch.


Edited by Realistic - 7/2/13 at 1:14am

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I'm most surprised at the "iWatch" name...

I think they are just taunting Samsung to come up with the S-watch.

 

 

If the iWatch was in fact a two way wrist video a la Dick Tracy then I think there'd be some traction. Probably 2nd on every boy's 60's list of must have gadgets, after the JetPak

post #19 of 45
Quote:
poksi wrote: "Wrist watch makes no sense of whatsoever... If any accessory, it should be better bluetooth earphones with mic. THere is nothing Siri couldn't let me know over earphones that I would need to look on some iWatch. Such device is actually step back. We don't wear watches anymore. Only people having few thousand Euro watches are wearing them. They are of no practical use anymore. Why forcing people to start old habits all over again?"

You seriously think wearing a BT headset is in anyway less uncool than wearing a wristwatch? Or to answer your question of why forcing people to start old habits again…

 

1.) The wrist is easily accessible. A quick glance can show you whether that vibrating phone in your pants really requires your current attention, without having to actually get your phone out.

 

2.) The wrist is a good point for checking movement, so it's perfect for tracking your sleep and for waking you up with an unobtrusive vibration alarm.

 

3.) The current "smart watches" have a couple of things in common, and with the iPhone, they're all missing good integration. Apple's all about good integration, and I'm looking forward to see what Apple can think of there.

 

4.) While you, personally, obviously don't think a wristwatch is something nice to have on you, there are tons of people who actually like to have some information "handy". Putting a good, flexible screen there with infinite possibilities (apps) is a serious step forward.

 

If you still want an earpiece, that's fine. But it's not a question of one OR the other for Apple. They can do both if they have really good ideas for both.

post #20 of 45
I like this article. Some of it is totally bogus, but there's some interesting applications for a wrist-device.
http://asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

tricky Apple... a clever name for a TV Monitor...

Clever :-)

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #22 of 45

Having an Apple earbud in your ear, it just about tolerable. Pulling an iPhone out of your pocket or iPod, especially in a nice container like a Piel Frama case, is a nice thing to do. It's nice to be in touch with the smooth metal and quality feel of an iPod touch... BUT...

 

The thought of significant numbers of people wishing to wrap an Apple branded or anyone branded flexible wrist device on themselves like some sort of automaton, is quite frankly, laughable. It would look so frikken idiotic. Maybe tweenage girls would like it. 

 

I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true, what better assurance than that can you have, I ask you?

post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

The thought of significant numbers of people wishing to wrap an Apple branded or anyone branded flexible wrist device on themselves like some sort of automaton, is quite frankly, laughable. It would look so frikken idiotic. Maybe tweenage girls would like it. 

 

 

When the iPod first came out it was better than other mp3 players on the market, but there was a huge fashion in having an iPod, and showing it. People wanted to be seen with it. People like being seen with their iPads and iPhones. So I wouldn't rule out the idea that people won't want to be seen wearing something Apple branded.

 

For the device itself, lots of people keep saying 'I don't wear a watch, why would I wear something like an iWatch?'

 

I'm guessing that if Apple does indeed release a product like this, it will be an accessory to the iPhone. Something that makes using the phone easier (i.e. not having to dig it out of your pocket if that's where it happens to be). There are quite a few people with iPhones 1wink.gif - I imagine there would be quite a few people who would welcome something that makes it even more convenient to use. 

Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

 

Yeah, I have no doubt that they will design one internally and to quite a lot of work on it, if only to work out the type of things that they may need to patent. This is a luxury afforded a company with limitless resources. 

 

Nevertheless it is my opinion that tech that straps to your wrist, (unless it enables you to fly) is a non starter other than tiny niche markets for runners and the like. Especially with iPods and iPhones getting more clever and compact. You are always going to want a decent sized (read iPhone size) screen in your pocket and that object will do whatever a strap on wrist device will do. Thats how I see it.

 

The iWatch will be like the portable DAT recorder if it were ever made. A strange amalgamation of digital and analog, neither fish nor fowl. I'm sure that others will beat Apple to it thinking that they have got one over Apple by getting it to market first but it's a red herring.

Agreed! It will be an "elegant Garmin." It will be something Garmin should have done years ago....make their products thinner and more elegant. Oh, and yes it will be an interface to your iPhone as well. And yes, it will be a lot better than the rendition in this article.

post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

Having an Apple earbud in your ear, it just about tolerable. Pulling an iPhone out of your pocket or iPod, especially in a nice container like a Piel Frama case, is a nice thing to do. It's nice to be in touch with the smooth metal and quality feel of an iPod touch... BUT...

 

The thought of significant numbers of people wishing to wrap an Apple branded or anyone branded flexible wrist device on themselves like some sort of automaton, is quite frankly, laughable. It would look so frikken idiotic. Maybe tweenage girls would like it. 

 

I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true, what better assurance than that can you have, I ask you?

Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 

post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 

 

Well, I hoping the iWatch (or whatever it is eventually called) will not be the same price bracket as an Omega or Rolex  1biggrin.gif

Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
Addabox: "But, you know, if you have to invoke a free OS on a free tablet on a free internet to "prove" that any possible Apple branded tablet would be a poor value, then knock yourself out."
Reply
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by fryke View Post

You seriously think wearing a BT headset is in anyway less uncool than wearing a wristwatch? Or to answer your question of why forcing people to start old habits again…

 

1.) The wrist is easily accessible. A quick glance can show you whether that vibrating phone in your pants really requires your current attention, without having to actually get your phone out.

 

2.) The wrist is a good point for checking movement, so it's perfect for tracking your sleep and for waking you up with an unobtrusive vibration alarm.

 

3.) The current "smart watches" have a couple of things in common, and with the iPhone, they're all missing good integration. Apple's all about good integration, and I'm looking forward to see what Apple can think of there.

 

4.) While you, personally, obviously don't think a wristwatch is something nice to have on you, there are tons of people who actually like to have some information "handy". Putting a good, flexible screen there with infinite possibilities (apps) is a serious step forward.

 

If you still want an earpiece, that's fine. But it's not a question of one OR the other for Apple. They can do both if they have really good ideas for both.

 

I don't think this is about coolness, but I DO listen to the music when around and I DON'T wear a watch. Young people are also following more or less same habit patterns.

 

Where should I put my headphones then: in iWatch or iPhone. YOu don't seriously think about iWatch as a independent smartphone, don't you?

 

1. This is point where it is useful, I already wrote this on this forum, but it's not worth the price or hassle.

2. Same as point above, feature, that needs only software update with earphones or headsets, same as above, more or less...

3. What would you like to integrate from watch? Current time, perhaps? Already done.... Watch without apps that can really put a substantial value to users is just...well, watch. :)

4. Apps are there to interact with user. Either via screen (which is too small on watch, obviously) or via Siri-like solutions. If you really want to use them, they need "base station" (phone) to communicate with, which will of course suck batteries dry in a no time at all if a watch is to be of reasonable size.

 

I don't say there aren't people that feel such device could be useful and I would like to see a solution that would make me happy and convince me about its own logic. So far nothing like that came to my mind or was read. You reasons haven't convinced me at all. 

post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 

 

Longines is my poison. 1biggrin.gif

post #29 of 45
This name is not for a watch, it is for their new TV service....
post #30 of 45
I think there are more uses to a wrist computing device than you guys are realizing.

For one it'd be a great MP3 player to work out with. It can have a Nike app to chart progress and maybe check your heart rate and health as well.

It also can be a great personal assistant. It can have a quick glance calendar with all your events. Your reminders can sync with it so that you can check your reminders and check off what you've done. Quick look notiications so you can check your messages and email on the fly. If it includes Siri that adds to its value as a personal assistant.

And if the design is beautifully minimalistic it will add style to whatever you're wearing. Apple advertises their shuffles and nanos as fashion accessories, so the fashion statement of an iWatch would be a valid selling point as well.

There are probably a few more killer features Apple could add as well, but if the device is beautiful and adds a huge convenience factor for people at a relatively low price it could be a hit and not a hobby.

By the way as far as charging I remember Apple made a motion charging patent a few months ago. A watch device would be the perfect candidate for such technology.
post #31 of 45
[quote name="Gazoobee" url="/t/158333/apple-applies-for-iwatch-trademark-in-mexico-and-taiwan#post_2356119"

I'm not sure I totally agree with you but I worry about the same thing.  Unless this hypothetical product has all kinds of aspects that we don't yet know about, it seems certain that it's a niche product at best.  I know I have no use for any of it's purported functions and I'm sure large numbers of other people are in the same boat as well.  

I'm most surprised at the "iWatch" name if it's true that they are going with it.  It suggests a hugely popular generic, category destroying item in the same way as 'iPhone" did, but while everyone needs a phone or portable computer of some kind and it's uses are many, I just can't see that any more than a few percent of the populace needs an "iWatch."  

Most people don't wear wrist watches.  
Most people don't give a crap about how many steps they walk or what their heart rate is.  

I can see the value of moving Siri our of your pocket and onto your wrist, but again, most people just don't use Siri that much that it's necessary.  
Most people also don't get enough notifications to make having them appear on your wrist worthwhile either.  

The whole thing is worrisome to me.  Feels like it's too early or perhaps simply a mistake.  
[/quote]

You say most people several times but never name a source for your data. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting you are wrong on nearly every count. Particularly in Apple's key demographics. As an example, Nike Fuel Bands and Fitbits do sell pretty well. Neither company releases exact sales numbers, but the the fuelband has made Nike's equipment group profitable.
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

You say most people several times but never name a source for your data. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting you are wrong on nearly every count. Particularly in Apple's key demographics. As an example, Nike Fuel Bands and Fitbits do sell pretty well. Neither company releases exact sales numbers, but the the fuelband has made Nike's equipment group profitable.

Bingo.

A key demographic people here are forgetting is the fitness demographic.

Check out this kickstarter:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/syre/meet-syre-the-worlds-first-bluetooth-ipod-nano-wat

People want a Bluetooth wearable device to work out with while they are listening to music. That's something none of te iPods provide in a focused way.
post #33 of 45
I think iWatch may actually be an Apple TV. There is no way they will get ITV as it is a very large and well established TV station in the UK.
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Right now I am rather reminded of that "iSlate.com" smokescreen Apple put up to fool Ballmer into presenting a completely unusable "HP Slate PC" hastily before Apple finally revealed the iPad, ignoring all that "slate" nonsense completely.

Calling whatever wearable device "iWatch" would imply that its primary function is being a watch. I can't really believe that. It might wrap around the wrist, but it certainly won't be a watch first.

 

Indeed. Its pretty obvious the primary function is not going to be a watch. Just like the square ipod nano, people were going :  hey this can be a watch too. imo, beside being an ipod and a watch, its going to be a device that can monitor body functions.

 

It could also have other purposes. For example if its waterproof and has a facetime camera, its could be used underwater to take pics or be a easy to carry camera/ipod to the beach.

 

Like other said, it could also be a TV. But if they do that and are planning the release a wrist device, not a good plan imo.


Edited by herbapou - 7/2/13 at 6:08am
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerxt View Post

I think iWatch may actually be an Apple TV. There is no way they will get ITV as it is a very large and well established TV station in the UK.

 

imo that not an issue. They will just have to call it something else in UK. OR make a deal with them.

post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

tricky Apple... a clever name for a TV Monitor...

Or a smart binocular...? But I guess something smart with SIRI integration.

post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Completely agree. Watches are the only piece of jewelry men can actually wear in any social setting. Why would one opt for a tacky "smart watch" when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever? 

Hmm.   seem to recall a similar sentiment attributed to the Swatch brand when launched in 1980's.   (Why would one opt for a (cheap) or ( tacky "smart watch) watch  when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever?)    Lots of watches sold as I recall.

 

Forward thinking suggests that this iwatch will be unlike anything  expected,  suggesting "tacky "smart watch" is planned from Apple would fly in the face of recent history....   what was a cell phone before iphone?      a tablet before ipad?  .......  

post #38 of 45

I love all of my Apple products, but they can keep their damn watch. I want no part of it.

post #39 of 45
Did anyone stop to think iWatch could be the name of apple's TV? And not a watch?
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by theCore View Post

Hmm.   seem to recall a similar sentiment attributed to the Swatch brand when launched in 1980's.   (Why would one opt for a (cheap) or ( tacky "smart watch) watch  when one could wear a classy Omega, Rolex or whatever?)    Lots of watches sold as I recall.

 

Forward thinking suggests that this iwatch will be unlike anything  expected,  suggesting "tacky "smart watch" is planned from Apple would fly in the face of recent history....   what was a cell phone before iphone?      a tablet before ipad?  .......  

 

The Swatch Group owns many luxury brands (Omega, Longines, Glashütte Original...). Sure, they still sell a ton of cheap, disposable watches, but the real money is made with pieces that cost upwards of 2'000 bucks. Also, Rolex is still independent and doing very, very well. Not a single one of these prestigious brands is threatened by smart watches.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple applies for 'iWatch' trademark in Mexico and Taiwan