or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple projected to ship nearly 65M 'iWatch' units priced at $199 in first year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple projected to ship nearly 65M 'iWatch' units priced at $199 in first year - Page 3

post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Apple has even gone as far as to file for ownership of the "iWatch" name in a number of countries around the world, potentially signaling its plans to release such a product. 

 

IMHO, iWatch is going to be associated with the TV Initiative not a physical watch since iTV is taken.

post #82 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

Apple needs to secure the rights to use "Dick Tracy" in their ads. 
no chance they would do this- ever.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #83 of 107

I still don't believe this's true. The demand of smart watches are low and why would Apple want to enter a market that there's no refresh products demanded later on? Who wants to upgrade his/her iWatch in the next refresh? Maybe Apple just make some iWatch for hobby only to see what will be the demand just like Apple TV instead of mass production. 

My opinion, smart watch is DOA.

I Want My iOS UI Like in Apple Watch"
Reply
I Want My iOS UI Like in Apple Watch"
Reply
post #84 of 107

People don't even wear watches now. What makes Apple think they will now that they make some sort of toy for your wrist? It will be a complete failure. And I will be sitting back saying "I told you so"

post #85 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by massconn72 View Post

People don't even wear watches now. What makes Apple think they will now that they make some sort of toy for your wrist? It will be a complete failure. And I will be sitting back saying "I told you so"

Uh huh.

$46,650,000,000 is "no one".
http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.htm

Not to mention, of course, that a watch that's connected to an iPhone might make some of the people who stopped wearing watches start wearing them again.
"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 #86 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by massconn72 View Post

People don't even wear watches now. What makes Apple think they will now that they make some sort of toy for your wrist? It will be a complete failure. And I will be sitting back saying "I told you so"

And people didn't want tablets or smart phones either.

I wear a watch but I don't think the iWatch is for me.
post #87 of 107
There will be no watch. On this thread people make mention of this hypothetical thingy linking up with the phone.
I don't get the point of this. Why have two devices?
How will the human interact with it? Surely not by typing, it will have to be voice driven, this technology has only started, and needs developing.
Me thinks this iWatch is something entirely different or a Trojan for samedung.
post #88 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

65M at $200 per watch is $13B in revenue. If we assume a 20% profit margin (somewhat less than Apple's average), that equals $2.6B. At a P/E ratio of 15x (higher, given that this would be seen as a growth segment), that's an extra $39B in market cap, or $40 - $45 per share. Pretty big.

I doubt that Apple will achieve anywhere close to 65M.

Well, that assumes that the market is rational.

Considering how big the "Apple can't innovate any more" noise has gotten, breaking into a new segment might shut those people up for a while and have a greater impact than the financials would indicate.

Of course, I'm still skeptical.
"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 #89 of 107

I have no idea if your speculation on sales is a good one or not.

 

But I'm certain I will be wearing one...when I jog, which is as frequently as I can.

 

I currently carry my iPhone 5 -- or wear it in a arm band, or tuck it in my waistband -- none of which is ideal. The BT is acting twitchy at best, and I'm wondering if I haven't managed to allow some sweat to find a way inside.

 

A waterproof watch, tho, that would display messages, play music and keep track of my run stats at $199 ...there isn't a doubt in the world that I would buy one...and then more in the future after that.
 

post #90 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Uh huh.

$46,650,000,000 is "no one".
http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.htm

Not to mention, of course, that a watch that's connected to an iPhone might make some of the people who stopped wearing watches start wearing them again.

First, that article says growth will be in luxury watches. A $50,000 Rolex is not a $199 iWatch.

Second, anecdotally, just looking around I see more women wearing watches than men. The watches I do see are cheap, kitsch watches, or high end jewelry.

I don't see the same clientele who buys cheap, or luxury watches, buying the modern equivalent of an LED watch priced at $200 or more. And not to unfairly stereotype, but I don't see women largely investing in cutting edge technology, when their interest in watches appears to be fashion oriented, which in large part appears to apply to watches I see on men as well.

That said, I might consider one if it connected my iPhone. I don't wear watches anymore, and I'm not interested in regularly wearing them ever again. However, I might wear it at the gym, and I would definitely wear it surfing. Probably wear it biking and other sporting events. But is Apple going to design it for this purpose? Or for the office? The office is the last place it's needed where the Blackberry has been an accepted and ubiquitous item on conference room tables for over a decade. Will people wear it shopping? Driving? Will it connect to my phone wherever I leave it?

It just seems they would have to offer multiple configurations for an accessory that is not likely to have as much demand as any of Apple's other products. It sounds like a money loser, with little gain, and at just doesn't sound like Apple.

Don't get me wrong, because I could see using one at some point in my life. But it is hardly a priority, much less a necessity. Does Apple really want a product that won't sell as well to a mass audience as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad? Will Apple call this too, a "hobby"? It seems clear to me that the media will dub this a failure if it fails to generate as much interest as any of Apple's flagship products, so how does it benefit Apple?
post #91 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post

I have no idea if your speculation on sales is a good one or not.

But I'm certain I will be wearing one...when I jog, which is as frequently as I can.

I currently carry my iPhone 5 -- or wear it in a arm band, or tuck it in my waistband -- none of which is ideal. The BT is acting twitchy at best, and I'm wondering if I haven't managed to allow some sweat to find a way inside.

A waterproof watch, tho, that would display messages, play music and keep track of my run stats at $199 ...there isn't a doubt in the world that I would buy one...and then more in the future after that. 

I would guess that any "smartwatch" that's going to display incoming messages, streaming music or other "connected content" will still use a smartphone to make the connection so you'd still be tucking it in a waistband or whatever.

But I'd like to be surprised. Maybe miniaturization has come that far.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #92 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

This rumor seems fake. But if it is real, maybe Apple should realize that people don't wear nor want watches anymore. Maybe they should start with 100,000 iWatches and see how it goes.

People have surgery to avoid wearing glasses, but Google seems to think they will pay a lot of money to wear google glasses.  Are you really as stupid as your comment made it seem or are you just trying to be obtuse?  Either way, hope it works out for you.

post #93 of 107

I can only say, with a pair of BlueJay-X BT ear buds with their unbelievably excellent range and clarity, coupled with a Pebble (and hopefully replaced bay an even better iWatch) showed me how nice this setup can be on the go.  The phone remains stowed, the watch controls content and displays controls, album art, Podcast info, iHeart Radio info as needed.

 

Add fitness info, and actual time that stays current while traversing time zones, it's building a compelling case to want one.  Maybe it's not for everyone but many will see value.

post #94 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

1 billion people were already buying phones and the functionality of the iPhone was significantly better because it finally brought usable browsing to mobile and powerful apps. A smart watch is competing more with the smartphone than the dumbwatch while being less powerful.

You can see various scenarios like checking email. The guy taps through a presentation on the watch and the graphics overlay says "sending email". It has voice to text so you'd have to use that for the whole thing as there's no keyboard. It has wifi to send email directly. Then he checks the weather info (makes sure to do it while near his wifi because it sure can't have cellular and wifi). It has GPS which is nice but it would need maps stored on the device for navigation. Then he uses the watch to tell the smartphone tied to his arm to take pervy pictures of the female runner. He gets his diet info and sits down to read news on the 1.5" 240x240 display. He goes to the business meeting where they all have Mac laptops and sends data through a nearby projector. Lastly he starts some sort of messaging with the people he's sitting next to (maybe the digital equivalent of writing numbers on napkins?).

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/17/geak-watch-android-china/

Voice to text, wifi, bluetooth, NFC, GPS, FM radio, headphone jack, biometric sensors, 1GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 4GB storage, 500mAh battery, 1.55" 240x240 display, $330.

It's basically a smartphone with a strap that can't make calls, has no cellular connectivity for data outside of wifi, relies on voice input for text (which requires network access), has too small a screen size and resolution for reading text. The battery is about 1/3 the size of a smartphone, maybe less so it'll have to find a way to draw around 0.5W maximum to make it through the day.

Some of the use cases are nice and it would be good for sports, especially navigation as you could for example see a map on your wrist while cycling or running. I think the uses cases where it has a lot of appeal have a very limited audience. By contrast, smartphone features are compelling for almost everyone with a dumbphone.

It may be worth making one - the Apple TV only sells 2 million units per quarter at $99 so 2 million watches per quarter at $199 would be better financially than the Apple TV. But would people buy a $199 watch that had no network connectivity when you were out and about unless you also had your smartphone in which case surely you'd use the smartphone most of the time. I don't think people are going to start dictating their tweets while walking down the street (I hope not anyway).

Having variable straps would allow people to personalise the devices and I'd say it's important to let people do that.

 

I don't think Apple will imagine it like a shrunken down and terrible attempt at a smartphone that straps to your wrist. I think it will be more like an accessory that does things your iPhone cannot do at all or cannot do without the assistance of this accessory. Especially for the fitness crowd, $200 is cheap.

 

We also have a world where there are an increasing array of photographers and videographers all using Apple products.

 

So imagine it isn't a crappy attempt at an iPhone. Imagine instead it measures your activity, your steps, your wake and sleeping cycles like a fitness bracelet but also your heart rate when running, tracks the run with GPS and shares it with your running app via iCloud which also updates the data for review on your iPhone or iPad.

 

Now also imagine you can put your iPhone or iPad some place to shoot video and you can trigger the start and stop of the video with the iWatch. The watch can also record your audio commentary for the video and again, via iCloud sync it as a second audio track for the video.

 

I'm not saying all these will happen or even that they are the best ideas out there but they are certainly ways it can be used without having to be a smartphone.

 

I'd love to imagine myself or my kids making a YouTube video with my iPhone taking video, my iPad mini taking video and me able to activate and stop both of them at the same time with my iWatch. That would be awesome.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarEnergy View Post

I have no idea if your speculation on sales is a good one or not.

 

But I'm certain I will be wearing one...when I jog, which is as frequently as I can.

 

I currently carry my iPhone 5 -- or wear it in a arm band, or tuck it in my waistband -- none of which is ideal. The BT is acting twitchy at best, and I'm wondering if I haven't managed to allow some sweat to find a way inside.

 

A waterproof watch, tho, that would display messages, play music and keep track of my run stats at $199 ...there isn't a doubt in the world that I would buy one...and then more in the future after that.
 

 

Anyone into fitness is begging for a water proof nano type watch that would allow them to track what they can with their phone or at least have it transfer back to their phone, but not risk their phone all while saving weight. Apple could hit a homerun here.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #95 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Uh huh.

$46,650,000,000 is "no one".
http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.htm

Not to mention, of course, that a watch that's connected to an iPhone might make some of the people who stopped wearing watches start wearing them again.


That would be a completely different direction. Have you considered what what drove the iphone? It consolidated functionality. It provided a source of music, a camera, email, and preceding phone functionality. It's often easier to sell something that replaces several devices than it is to sell an accessory. That is why I find the presumption of volume to be silly without any real reference to the anticipated functionality.

post #96 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I would guess that any "smartwatch" that's going to display incoming messages, streaming music or other "connected content" will still use a smartphone to make the connection so you'd still be tucking it in a waistband or whatever.

But I'd like to be surprised. Maybe miniaturization has come that far.

I would prefer an accessory that exploits the phone's radios rather than face paying a carrier for another contract.

post #97 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I don't think Apple will imagine it like a shrunken down and terrible attempt at a smartphone that straps to your wrist. I think it will be more like an accessory that does things your iPhone cannot do at all or cannot do without the assistance of this accessory. Especially for the fitness crowd, $200 is cheap.

One thing with the fitness idea is that Tim is on the board of Nike which makes the fuelband so they'd end up competing with that. Plus that fitness bracelet lasts a week on battery. As soon as Apple puts a multi-touch display and fast enough CPU/GPU on a watch, the battery life is going to be close to a day - this was the case with the iPod Nano watch and that couldn't even run 3rd party apps.

Having to charge a watch every day isn't really common with watch wearers. Watches are pretty much designed to never need charging.

The Nano or Shuffle are better suited for music while running.

It needs to have a unique selling point. Everything Apple sells has features that can be put up on a poster. I very much doubt that they'd sell a watch as a fitness accessory or even a navigation product, certainly not a music player. I also think the top of the wrist isn't very ergonomic. If this is a device for prolonged use, having the display on the inside of the arm would be far more comfortable but then it loses the aesthetic.
post #98 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

One thing with the fitness idea is that Tim is on the board of Nike which makes the fuelband so they'd end up competing with that. Plus that fitness bracelet lasts a week on battery. As soon as Apple puts a multi-touch display and fast enough CPU/GPU on a watch, the battery life is going to be close to a day - this was the case with the iPod Nano watch and that couldn't even run 3rd party apps.

Having to charge a watch every day isn't really common with watch wearers. Watches are pretty much designed to never need charging.

The Nano or Shuffle are better suited for music while running.

It needs to have a unique selling point. Everything Apple sells has features that can be put up on a poster. I very much doubt that they'd sell a watch as a fitness accessory or even a navigation product, certainly not a music player. I also think the top of the wrist isn't very ergonomic. If this is a device for prolonged use, having the display on the inside of the arm would be far more comfortable but then it loses the aesthetic.

There no problem plugging your watch in daily. There was a time people didnt plug a phone in. Now you do. People adapt. You take your watch off at night, plug it in, and put it on in the morning. Done deal.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #99 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

There no problem plugging your watch in daily. There was a time people didnt plug a phone in. Now you do. People adapt. You take your watch off at night, plug it in, and put it on in the morning. Done deal.

People always charged phones. Here's an old phone:

http://www.phonearena.com/phones/Nokia-6680_id1107

6 hours talk time. You'd have to charge old phones less frequently, say every 3 days but nobody ever charges watches (you may have noticed the lack of charging ports on them). If smart watches had an inductive charger you can sit the watch on it, that would be easier but whether people will be happy with a watch that only lasts a day remains to be seen.

http://gigaom.com/2013/03/16/why-i-stopped-wearing-my-ipod-nano-as-a-watch/

The iPod watch got some interest but 13,512 people in a month isn't a lot for a company like Apple:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok-lunatik-multi-touch-watch-kits

This article here says the Samsung Galaxy Gear watch will have 10 hours of battery life:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10275662/Galaxy-Gear-will-have-10-hours-battery-life.html

That might not even make it through the day.
post #100 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I don't think Apple will imagine it like a shrunken down and terrible attempt at a smartphone that straps to your wrist. I think it will be more like an accessory that does things your iPhone cannot do at all or cannot do without the assistance of this accessory. Especially for the fitness crowd, $200 is cheap.

One thing with the fitness idea is that Tim is on the board of Nike which makes the fuelband so they'd end up competing with that. Plus that fitness bracelet lasts a week on battery. As soon as Apple puts a multi-touch display and fast enough CPU/GPU on a watch, the battery life is going to be close to a day - this was the case with the iPod Nano watch and that couldn't even run 3rd party apps.

Having to charge a watch every day isn't really common with watch wearers. Watches are pretty much designed to never need charging.

The Nano or Shuffle are better suited for music while running.

It needs to have a unique selling point. Everything Apple sells has features that can be put up on a poster. I very much doubt that they'd sell a watch as a fitness accessory or even a navigation product, certainly not a music player. I also think the top of the wrist isn't very ergonomic. If this is a device for prolonged use, having the display on the inside of the arm would be far more comfortable but then it loses the aesthetic.

 

I don't see that being a problem at all. First Apple has turned to Nike for all their fitness tracking needs and I'd bet they'd be willing to continue to do that here. So the section of the iWatch that tracks all your fitness stats is Nike+. Nike charges $169 for a GPS watch and that is actually relatively cheap for what they go for in terms of price. My point is can Apple take what Nike offers, and what others already charge more for and add $30 worth of Apple value to that so that it sells but doesn't try to be a terrible imitation of a smartphone that straps to your wrist. I think they can and should.

 

Nobody thinks it strange to buy expensive accessories for your computer. Smartphones are now our computers. When people don't sweat a $50 case or $80 extended battery as an accessory, they won't sweat a $200 watch that is a Super Nano/iPhone accessory done right.

 

NIke+GPS watch $169.

 

Apple iWatch with GPS, iTunes with wifi sync $199 (Wifi also helps justify price increase from iPod nano)

+Ability to push through certain important notifications from select contacts when exercising via Bluetooth 4.0 if iPhone is near.

+Ability to work with Apple camera app on iPhone and iPad to remotely trigger and stop shooting photos and video (Bye GoPro, you just became the new Flip)

+Several other abilities people above my pay grade are able to conjure.

 

As for a unique selling point. Simply imagine a skateboarder heading toward the trick he's going to pull. His Apple totting friends in tow. He is a few seconds out and he touches his wrist. Suddenly a cut to his iPhone on a tripod recording his video. The video records his awesome trick.

 

If Apple were really nuts it could also link to and activate the cameras of any friends who want to point their iPhones, etc at him and then share all the shared shots and video via an iCloud photo/videostream.

 

Heck could you imagine the unveiling? Tim could invite people to share their keynote video that they shoot and he starts the filming and thus they are all synced in terms of the time started.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #101 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Nike charges $169 for a GPS watch and that is actually relatively cheap for what they go for in terms of price. My point is can Apple take what Nike offers, and what others already charge more for and add $30 worth of Apple value to that so that it sells but doesn't try to be a terrible imitation of a smartphone that straps to your wrist. I think they can and should.

In Nike's 10-k for last year, they note $1.2b worldwide revenue for equipment sales:

http://investors.nikeinc.com/files/doc_financials/AnnualReports/2012/docs/nike-2012-form-10K.pdf

If that was all $169 watches, it would be around 7.1m units per year or 1.8m per quarter. Their watch has been available since early 2011.

I think it does have an appeal but the appeal is to a very small audience. As I mentioned earlier, Apple sells an Apple TV at 2 million units per quarter and a $200 watch would make more revenue so financially there's enough reason to make one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apple iWatch with GPS

I'd expect they'd want maps on it too but there's no cellular data. GPS would just be to track movement data otherwise, which is fine but again limited appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Simply imagine a skateboarder heading toward the trick he's going to pull. His Apple totting friends in tow. He is a few seconds out and he touches his wrist. Suddenly a cut to his iPhone on a tripod recording his video. The video records his awesome trick.

If Apple were really nuts it could also link to and activate the cameras of any friends who want to point their iPhones, etc at him and then share all the shared shots and video via an iCloud photo/videostream.

Heck could you imagine the unveiling? Tim could invite people to share their keynote video that they shoot and he starts the filming and thus they are all synced in terms of the time started.

Why would the person with the watch need to activate the phones when people are holding them? The camera on the tripod would also have to track the user or be far enough away that it can be stolen. The watch also has to be linked with all the phones, it can't just randomly control other people's phones. The usage scenarios outside of fitness are mostly impractical in much the same way Samsung's phone bumping is impractical.
post #102 of 107
There's a few interesting stats here on the global watch market:

http://www.wthejournal.com/en/pages/swiss-watch-industry-figures

It lists similar revenue figures mentioned previously:

2011
1.2 billion watches sold
35 billion Swiss francs, which they take to be roughly the same in USD
Of that amount, $18.8b or 54% of revenue goes to swiss watches despite only making up 31 million watches out of 1.2 billion (this makes the average unit price of the swiss watch around $600)
This means the average unit price of the remaining watches is $13. That sounds low but it's broken down here (same stat sources):

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21571943-industry-ripe-shake-up-time-money

That shows that 403m watches come from Hong Kong at an average price of $16 and 682m from China at an average price of $5. I assume those are export prices that will be marked up at retail. Maybe not though, some retail watches are that cheap, even ones with smart features:

http://www.amazon.com/Casio-CA53W-Databank-Calculator-Watch/dp/B000GB1R7S

The comments as usual are awesome:

"This is a great watch for the cost. Purchased for my son and he really enjoys the watch very much."

No he doesn't Kevin.

"Not super high quality, but a good product for $15. Son wanted it for the calculator and the large size."
"We bought this for our godson and he loved it!! It's hard to buy for some people, but he wanted it, you had it, so it was a good gift!"
"This is the fourth one of this model that I have owned and they all have been great! The only feature that I miss is a button to control a backlight so I could read it in the dark. The reason for the multiple units is that I live on a lake and sometimes forget I have it on."

There you have lake dwellers inflating the numbers because they are forgetting it's not water-proof. Also grandparents are buying cheap watches for people when they run out of gift ideas, "thanks grandpa, this $13 digital watch designed in 1985 was just what I wanted *drops into drawer beside Android tablet and badly designed ties*, I'll put it on later".

This market certainly looks like the phone market before Apple indisputably came along and changed it forever more. You have decade-old companies that have largely run out of ideas and are repeatedly selling inexpensive junk devices with old designs at the low-end and the ones at the high-end are very expensive and for a select group (sort of the equivalent of Blackberry).

I don't think Apple would have any hope of displacing the high-end swiss watch market but at least that's the lowest proportion of buyers. The bulk of the 1.2b seems to be at the very low-end. Maybe some people will move up from sub-$30 watches to $200 watches like they did with dumbphones. I'd expect some people who buy in that price range already on the likes of this would:

http://www.amazon.com/Casio-PRW2500-1-Pathfinder-Tough-Digital/dp/B005OVCF8U

Solar charging like that might help battery performance issues but it depends on how much solar can generate compared to the typical power draw.

I notice a few people are putting wifi in smart watches but I actually think some sort of cellular connection would work better than wifi even if it's just plain old 2G networking. Data doesn't have to be that fast - Apple maps load ok over 2G now that they are vectors. You can't really view images on such a small display so emails and messages would download just text. No browser, no 3rd party apps like the iPod. If they can build an iPod Nano for retail at $149 and Sony's watch is $99, I'd expect they can hit the $99-149 price point too.

OLED can be used here too as there's no need for any media capability. Some sort of Magsafe might be a possibility for charging. Have the side of the watch able to connect magnetically to a plug and use induction to charge so no external charge ports. I wonder if it would need any physical buttons at all. It would be easier to make waterproof that way. You can just tap-hold on the bezel for actions or shake the wrist.

You'd sync the watch to iTunes via a computer or iOS device and that stores the iTunes ID (has to as there's no keyboard). Then it could either sync mail accounts or it can just display any push notifications you get and read-only. Siri would be a must for maps and again why cellular is better than wifi. Cellular might be tricky with no ports unless it had another form of sim like digital but people wouldn't want to pay for data twice.

I don't like the idea of the watch piggy-backing off the phone because if you have a phone with you anyway, I think the appeal of the watch is much less.
post #103 of 107

TBQH I'll be the first in line. I've been wearing a Nano v.6 watch (LunaTik) for two years, it's super limited, and it's relatively ugly. But it's saved my ass (as a preschool teacher) a few times when my Nano v.7 has unexpectedly run out of battery.

 

If Apple makes something that can interface with my iPhone, it will change my whole life. :)

 

Or just a watch-sized nano with Bluetooth FFS.

post #104 of 107
Design-wise the Sony smartwatch looks like the iPod Nano watch:



I think that video shows a lot of the flaws with this kind of device. Having to sit with the phone and smartwatch to sync things up like that doesn't look very appealing. They even have a larger 2nd revision coming this month:



You can see the charging port on the side there. I think they'd have to come up with a much nicer design than that. The problem is a tiny 1.5" screen is hard to use and a bigger screen would need a big battery and be quite bulky. It needs to be slim, easy to use, it needs to work seamlessly without all that syncing and I think it needs to last at least two days on battery. OLED is quite hard to see in sunlight too.
post #105 of 107
With the Watch now having a starting price of $349 I guess we'll never know if Mr. Wanli's prediction was accurate or not.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #106 of 107

Would you pay $349.00 for this watch ?

post #107 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Would you pay $349.00 for this watch ?

I have a weird answer for it: yes I think it's worth that price and would pay that. But I'm not interested in this watch, so no. I need sports watches, like the Ambit Suunto I posted about earlier. But Polar, Timex, & Garmin work as well for these purposes. The Watch won't suffice here as it doesn't have a GPS chip in it, amongst other limitations.

Darn, how do I get that Apple logo not filled in? A simple trace outline would be better in my opinion.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple projected to ship nearly 65M 'iWatch' units priced at $199 in first year