or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › After a series of 'home runs,' it'd be OK if Apple's next product is a 'single,' Evercore says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

After a series of 'home runs,' it'd be OK if Apple's next product is a 'single,' Evercore says

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
After the iPod, iPhone and iPad all proved to be "home run" products, the law of large numbers mean it's likely Apple's next new product category may only be a "single" or a "double" -- and that's perfectly fine, in the eyes of one analyst.




Rob Cihra of Evercore Partners issued a note to investors on Wednesday, a copy of which was provided to AppleInsider, in which he said there may only be a few incremental markets where Apple could disrupt in the same way that iPhones and iPads have. While the iPhone added some 50 percent to Apple's revenues, it would be near impossible to replicate that kind of success.

Cihra expects that Apple will enter the wearable electronics market, potentially with a so-called "iWatch." But he sees products in that category ultimately adding an incremental 5 percent to the company's bottom line.

Another new potential market category for Apple would be a larger 12-inch iPad model targeted at enterprise customers, and potentially offering a more full-featured version of iOS.

He also sees Apple launching an expanded Apple TV that could serve as a "home gateway," and potentially triple the selling price of the current low-end model to a new cost of $299.

iWatch
iWatch concept by Todd Hamilton


Finally, Cihra also sees new opportunities for Apple in advertising and e-commerce, allowing the company to leverage its large user base and 600 million active iTunes accounts with connected credit cards.

The analyst is bullish on all of those potential growth opportunities, but he cautioned that investors should not expect any of them to be blockbuster products in the same way the iPhone, iPad and iPod were before them. In his eyes, each of them could still incrementally add more to Apple's net profit and keep the company growing into the future.

As such, he believes investors should buy into AAPL stock in the near-term ahead of the company's March quarter earnings call scheduled for April 23. For the just-concluded quarter, he believes Apple likely sold 37 million iPhones and 18 million iPads, with gross margins of 37.8 percent, resulting in $43.8 billion in revenue.

Evercore Partners has retained its "overweight" rating for AAPL stock, with a price target of $670.
post #2 of 49
Huh? Lately all they've been hitting are singles!!! Still waiting for things like a watch, carplay (for Jeep :/), the TV, etc...
post #3 of 49
Home runs? More specifically I would call the iPod / iPhone / iPad "grand slams"! They not only changed Apple but they changed the way we interacted with "computers".
post #4 of 49

Apple products (the ones that succeed anyway) generally start out as singles and wind up as outside the park grand slams. No one knew that the I-Pod would utterly dominate the MP3 player market when it came out. Before the I-Pod, companies were making junk like MP3 player boom boxes, and Sony had an MP3 player version of their Walkman. Then within a few years of coming out with the Shuffle and I-Tunes for Windows ... that whole market was gone to Apple.

 

Similarly, the I-Pod and the I-Pad were mocked, derided devices initially that took a couple of years to catch on. So the chances are that even if Apple comes out with a home run, we won't know it for awhile. For all we know, their home run might be an Apple TV upgrade that turns it into a standalone gaming console that doesn't need AirPlay mirroring from a game that is really being played on an I-Pad or I-Pod Touch. The Roku 3 has gaming support but it stinks (Angry Birds is the only game and you have to use the remote as a controller). Chromecast developers are working on gaming applications, but it is very limited right now. The various Android game consoles have all failed, with the Ouya team stating that they are transitioning from consoles towards being a gaming as a service cloud platform (but they have no partners lined up to distribute their content, and not much in the way of developers lined up either). Amazon is rumored to introduce a dongle with streaming games capability today, but that effort has been so much start/stop/delay/back to the drawing board that it may not be until the second generation gets it right.

 

But think about it: Apple TV with the new A7 chip that could support a variety of controllers (or use the remote as a controller if you do not want to buy one) with the ability to both stream games (from a variety of sources, such as a cloud service or from your Mac or PC, so they could turn I-Tunes into a games delivery service the way that they have done with music and movies and TV shows ... since you can already sync apps bought through the I-Tunes Store for your phone or I-Pod that capability already potentially exists, they just have to develop it, where the app would run on I-Tunes itself ... I guess I-Tunes could be updated to include a platform-independent IOS virtual machine, which is very easy to do) and save games to the device and play them from the device using the same IOS virtual machine.

 

That would make Apple TV a competitor with the XBox, Playstation and Nintendo (or more accurately just Nintendo because it would be for casual gamers) consoles. They would succeed where the crowdfunded Android boxes failed, and also succeed where Nintendo and XBox failed (in their attempts to make people center their living rooms around their consoles). It would be both evolutionary (leveraging existing technology into a single combined product) and revolutionary (giving a new, vastly improved gaming experience in a smaller, cheaper console).


It might up the price of an Apple TV to about $125, but it would be well worth it: still much cheaper than everything but the stripped down last generation Wii that Nintendo will allow those who do not want to pay $300 for their Wii U. It would be even better if they were to copy (steal) the Roku Wi-Fi remote concept for the Apple TV remote/controller, so no matter where you point the controller (no worry about IR line of sight nonsense that the Wii and the Kinect impose on you) it will still work, so gaming will be all about response time and pressing the right button, not doing those while continuing to have to point it in the right direction. Roku 3 already has a version of this, and so do the mirroring type games where you use your tablet or phone as the controller, but Apple could do it better - do it RIGHT - with the Apple TV.

 

Then Apple could sell tens of millions of Apple TVs a quarter - driving Roku out of business altogether and forcing Amazon and Chromecast to play catch up - while watching Samsung and Google write down billions of losses with wearables.

 

Sound like a plan?

post #5 of 49

The law of large numbers doesn't suggest this at all.  The analyst who suggested it is ignorant of Bayes Law.

 

It is like saying that someone who has just won three coin tosses in a row has a less than 50% chance of winning the next coin toss, which is nonsense.  The chance of winning the next coin toss is always 50% regardless of how many coin tosses have been won or lost in the past.

 

In the case of successful products, a good history probably tends to predict a good future, though not with 100% certainty of course.

Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #6 of 49
These jokers ran out of creative ways to hurt their customers...so, the bottom line is Google and Amazon still lost money in whatever they do, which the jokers will call innovations, Facebook make acquisition which could take 40 years to see their money back...and their stocks price target would be doubled with the jokers' forecasts.
post #7 of 49
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler View Post

These jokers ran out of creative ways to hurt their customers...so, the bottom line is Google and Amazon still lost money in whatever they do, which the jokers will call innovations, Facebook make acquisition which could take 40 years to see their money back...and their stocks price target would be doubled with the jokers' forecasts.

I'm a very happy amazon customer but I don't directly own any shares.
post #8 of 49

No way will a single be good enough for Wall Street. They're looking for a home run and the stock will take a HUGE hit if it's not. A single will also be confirmation that Apple has lost its mojo.  

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #9 of 49
As was the case the iPod, iPhone and iPad, Mr Market's initial take is always "strike out!" They won't get it, but the customer - remember them?- will embrace it. The next product's eventual success will be chalked up to "fan boy" excesses by the hate squad who want firms to lose money like Amazon and transact $mulit billion acquisitions like Google ( Motorola, sold in 2 years for pennies) and Facebook.
post #10 of 49
All I know is that I stopped wearing a watch each day once I got an iPhone. I wear my dress watch (rather nice one) with important dinners/weddings for fashion. Personally I tend to look at my phone for the time even when I'm wearing a watch and struggle to see market place for any iwatch (smart watch) device other than fitness. I'm guessing bugger all people give a toss about fitness as a % of iPhone users so iwatch is a waste of time as a big money earner. Meh.. but I doubted iPad too and apple has made me want stuff I don't need before sooo??
post #11 of 49

I want Apple's take on the Microsoft Surface Pro. A tablet/laptop hybrid, OS X, HDMI output so I can use it like Apple TV, built-in phone mic so I can make calls on it, plus straps so I can wear it as a watch. I'll call it the iEverything. It is okay if it is a "single".

 

/s

post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post
 

No way will a single be good enough for Wall Street. They're looking for a home run and the stock will take a HUGE hit if it's not. A single will also be confirmation that Apple has lost its mojo.  

When Apple was in the verge of being kicked out of the majors... it strung together a few game winning hits, iMac, iPod, Powerbook, OSX... At the time, they were good solid singles and doubles... but they got Apple into the post season, and therefore enough to retain them on the roster.

 

The Macbook,  the iPhone, the iPad... those were Out of the park grand salamis...   pushing the Apple to the championships.

 

Now, with the ballpark sufficiently larger, hitting it out of the park is really hard.    The competition has realized what Apple has done and built their teams to use where it can (and sometimes where it can't or shouldn't) apple's methods, developed the same skills, and is competitive.   What used to be a screaming shot into the gap for a triple is now a long single for apple.   The market and the competition have pushed fences farther back (a 1Billion a year product when you're making a 10B a year is a big deal, but a 2 Billion product when you're making 50Billion a year... not so much) , and the crowds have grown larger and restless, waiting for something really amazing to cheer for.

 

 

Swinging for the fences is high reward, but it's now high risk.

 

Yet the game is still won by a lot of hard work, often behind the scenes and preseason (supply chain, design, strategic acquisitions), and using this work to set the table for the potential big hit.  Yet, if you get a couple singles, a double steal, and then a solid stroke... you can still win the game.  And most of all, Apple has to maintain plate discipline.   it can't swing at every pitch, Try to make every single into a double, and sometimes a sacrifice is the best 'team play.'   All that said, I do hope Apple still swings hard at every pitch in their zone... in case they do hit it...

 

[okay, with that, I'm done with the baseball analogies.... I'll watch baseball and apple and not confuse the two]

post #13 of 49
I stopped reading the article after the first paragraph to read the comments. Most of you have written comments similar to my thinking. Thanks!
post #14 of 49
Perfectly reasonable way to think. The smartwatch may be very good, but maybe not many people will be interested in it. I might be interested, but I'd be very surprised if it was as big as the iPhone or iPad. And if they sell well without changing everything again, it will be fine for sure. But anti-Apple pundits will use it as an excuse to say that Apple isn't the magical company it was supposed to be before.
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post
 

The law of large numbers doesn't suggest this at all.  The analyst who suggested it is ignorant of Bayes Law.

 

It is like saying that someone who has just won three coin tosses in a row has a less than 50% chance of winning the next coin toss, which is nonsense.  The chance of winning the next coin toss is always 50% regardless of how many coin tosses have been won or lost in the past.

 

In the case of successful products, a good history probably tends to predict a good future, though not with 100% certainty of course.

Agreed.  The "law of large numbers" mention in the summary is complete BS.  On the other hand, the overall point is correct.  Not everything Apple does is going to be a world-changing success.  They are similar to Pixar perhaps: for years every one of their movies was simply incredible (no pun intended).  Nowaways most of their movies are still great, but some are just really good.

post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler View Post

These jokers ran out of creative ways to hurt their customers...so, the bottom line is Google and Amazon still lost money in whatever they do, which the jokers will call innovations, Facebook make acquisition which could take 40 years to see their money back...and their stocks price target would be doubled with the jokers' forecasts.

For the millionth time, Apple has launched a bunch of products that did not pan out either. They have had a good run starting with the I-Pod, other devices that built on the I-Pod (I-Phone and I-Pad) as well as with Mac OS X. But get this.

 

1. Apple has not come out with a new product that is not an iteration of the I-Pod. (I-Phone = I-Pod touch + telephone, I-Pad = large I-Pod touch, App Store = ITunes Store, etc.) Until they do, analysts are going to prefer companies that are trying new things, or at least trying new ways to achieve what Apple and other companies have done. Android (a free, open source OS) is new, even if it is often (but not always) used to emulate Apple products. Social networking is new, or at least newer than Apple's I-line. ChromeOS, FirefoxOS? New. Chromecast and Amazon's new offering? New, or newer than Apple TV. Wearables? New, and who knows it may actually catch on in a year or 3 like it took the I-Pod, I-Phone and I-Pad to. Maybe it just needs someone to come out with a practical device, and a Chinese chip manufacturer (the same one behind the $100 Android tablets that are, well better than the other Chinese Android tablets) that may make them possible: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2138640/newton-is-the-first-mipsbased-minicomputer-for-wearables.html

I still say that the ticket is a standalone smart watch that doesn't need to be tethered to a phone. It is already technologically feasible, even if at this point it is only capable of a very cheap or very early smart phone. Firefox should come out with $200 standalone smart watches for this market instead of $25 smart phones  for developing markets, for instance.

 

2. You guys need to get your gripes consistent. First, you bash other companies for ripping off Apple (even when they haven't ripped off Apple you guys still claim that they have, like DED did yesterday). Then you guys bash other companies for trying to innovate. Again, what is it that you want? For Apple to be the only technology company on the planet?

post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler View Post

These jokers ran out of creative ways to hurt their customers...so, the bottom line is Google and Amazon still lost money in whatever they do, which the jokers will call innovations, Facebook make acquisition which could take 40 years to see their money back...and their stocks price target would be doubled with the jokers' forecasts.


40 years?

Maybe you don't realize the potential Oculus has. VR and AR will be everywhere within 20 years max.

post #18 of 49

Clearly what Apple needs now is a stand-up double followed by a sacrifice fly and a bunt to score the runner for a 3-2 win in the bottom of the 11th.  That'll show Wall Street that Cook knows how to play small ball.  It's all about the Ws.

post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post
 

2. You guys need to get your gripes consistent. First, you bash other companies for ripping off Apple (even when they haven't ripped off Apple you guys still claim that they have, like DED did yesterday). Then you guys bash other companies for trying to innovate. Again, what is it that you want? For Apple to be the only technology company on the planet?

Throwing billions at start up companies is not "innovating."

post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

Perfectly reasonable way to think. The smartwatch may be very good, but maybe not many people will be interested in it. I might be interested, but I'd be very surprised if it was as big as the iPhone or iPad. And if they sell well without changing everything again, it will be fine for sure. But anti-Apple pundits will use it as an excuse to say that Apple isn't the magical company it was supposed to be before.


The smartwatch thing is simple. Instead of making it have the same look and feel of a current generation smart device (which drives up the price while simultaneously making it pretty much useless) instead create and market a device for $200 bucks that is basically an old Blackberry or a cheap Android phone being sold in developing countries.

 

Trutthfully, it doesn't even have to be a touchscreen device. Or if it absolutely must be, you can run Android Gingerbread or Honeycomb on a very small device. It could have like a 3-3.5 inch screen ... basically you could take a stripped down version of the Samsung Galaxy Music and make it a watch. You would still be able to surf the web, do social networking, play certain games, and have it be a standalone device. Square screen, circle screen, octagonal screen ... doesn't matter. People would buy it.

 

Google and Samsung are not very bright for not having thought of this already. OR Apple could retrofit their first I-Phone, released in 2007, into a watch and have it on the market by this time next year for about the same amount of money that they charge for an I-Pad. (Don't roll your eyes, you can get an I-Phone 4s for free with a 2 year contract from most carriers.) If they did that, they would CRUSH the wearables market and single-handledly bring watches back into fashion. That would be an immediate home run, not a single.

post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post
 

Throwing billions at start up companies is not "innovating."


1. Companies do it all the time, including Apple.

2. I must have missed it where Google threw billions at a startup for Google Glass, Android and ChromeOS/ChromeBox or Samsung did the same with Tizen and smart watches.

post #22 of 49

I don't really see a big market for the iwatch with individuals, however all of the rumors about health related sensors make me think there maybe a huge market in the medical field. If this is really aimed at that field then the pricing maybe very different as well (the cost of a typical apple product is very low in medical device" terms). 

post #23 of 49
I researched the analyst's previous remarks about Apple and found.... To my surprise, he has been relatively consistent with his remarks about Apple.
post #24 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by msalganik View Post
 

I don't really see a big market for the iwatch with individuals, however all of the rumors about health related sensors make me think there maybe a huge market in the medical field. If this is really aimed at that field then the pricing maybe very different as well (the cost of a typical apple product is very low in medical device" terms). 


That is because you are thinking of it as a watch. Think of it is a cool looking or fashionable phone that you can strap on your wrist with a cool looking leather or metal band (if the smartwatch/smartphone case market is so huge, imagine the smart watch strap market!), and - assuming that it is an Android or FirefoxOS or Canonical Ubuntu device - much cheaper than what most smartphones cost.

 

Again, you could put Gingerbread on a watch-sized phone already. You could put the 1st generation or second generation IOS on a watch-sized phone.

post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post
 

No way will a single be good enough for Wall Street. They're looking for a home run and the stock will take a HUGE hit if it's not. A single will also be confirmation that Apple has lost its mojo.  

 

I doubt Apple really cares about the stock price. They really never have, so why start now? When they start focusing on whats going to make their stock price raise, then its time to sell your stock and start looking elsewhere for products. 

 

I'm sure investors think differently, but as far as Apple is concerned, I don't think its a major concern with releasing new products. If Apple does what Apple does best, the stock price will take care of itself. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #26 of 49

I guess i can see how that could grab some more market share (at least for those people who use bluetooth), but in terms of profit, I think the medical side shouldn't be overlooked. Perhaps they'll come out with a consumer device first and then a more sensor-rich device for the medical community (and with a very different price tag). Personally the idea of slapping a phone onto my wrist isn't appealing to me but I'm one of those people hoping the 5.5" iPhone rumors are true, so I'm obviously biased. 

post #27 of 49

def: "In probability theory and statisticsBayes' theorem (alternatively Bayes' law or Bayes' rule) is a result that is of importance in the mathematical manipulation of conditional probabilities. It is a result that derives from the more basicaxioms of probability.

...

Although Bayes theorem is commonly used to determine the probability of an event occurring, it can also be applied to verify someones credibility as a prognosticator. Many pundits claim to be able to predict the outcome of an event; political elections, trials, the weather and even sporting events."

 

When will analysts finally understand that Apple doesn't work the way other companies work or like anything they supposedly learned in school. If I used Bayes' theorem on analysts I'd say there's a huge statistical certainty that 99% of them will be wrong in everything they guess at. In order to provide a probable theory, these analysts actually need to understand what Apple is doing and that's the first thing they have no grasp of and never will.

post #28 of 49
Based on that chart above they could use another hit to end that plateauing of revenue but I hope they wait until the product is ready, not simply to fill a short-term gap like others. Historically speaking, waiting a few quarters doesn't seem to get remembered but releasing a bad product does.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/2/14 at 8:11am

"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 #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post
 

Apple products (the ones that succeed anyway) generally start out as singles and wind up as outside the park grand slams. No one knew that the I-Pod would utterly dominate the MP3 player market when it came out. Before the I-Pod, companies were making junk like MP3 player boom boxes, and Sony had an MP3 player version of their Walkman. Then within a few years of coming out with the Shuffle and I-Tunes for Windows ... that whole market was gone to Apple.

 

Similarly, the I-Pod and the I-Pad were mocked, derided devices initially that took a couple of years to catch on. So the chances are that even if Apple comes out with a home run, we won't know it for awhile. For all we know, their home run might be an Apple TV upgrade that turns it into a standalone gaming console that doesn't need AirPlay mirroring from a game that is really being played on an I-Pad or I-Pod Touch. The Roku 3 has gaming support but it stinks (Angry Birds is the only game and you have to use the remote as a controller). Chromecast developers are working on gaming applications, but it is very limited right now. The various Android game consoles have all failed, with the Ouya team stating that they are transitioning from consoles towards being a gaming as a service cloud platform (but they have no partners lined up to distribute their content, and not much in the way of developers lined up either). Amazon is rumored to introduce a dongle with streaming games capability today, but that effort has been so much start/stop/delay/back to the drawing board that it may not be until the second generation gets it right.

 

But think about it: Apple TV with the new A7 chip that could support a variety of controllers (or use the remote as a controller if you do not want to buy one) with the ability to both stream games (from a variety of sources, such as a cloud service or from your Mac or PC, so they could turn I-Tunes into a games delivery service the way that they have done with music and movies and TV shows ... since you can already sync apps bought through the I-Tunes Store for your phone or I-Pod that capability already potentially exists, they just have to develop it, where the app would run on I-Tunes itself ... I guess I-Tunes could be updated to include a platform-independent IOS virtual machine, which is very easy to do) and save games to the device and play them from the device using the same IOS virtual machine.

 

That would make Apple TV a competitor with the XBox, Playstation and Nintendo (or more accurately just Nintendo because it would be for casual gamers) consoles. They would succeed where the crowdfunded Android boxes failed, and also succeed where Nintendo and XBox failed (in their attempts to make people center their living rooms around their consoles). It would be both evolutionary (leveraging existing technology into a single combined product) and revolutionary (giving a new, vastly improved gaming experience in a smaller, cheaper console).


It might up the price of an Apple TV to about $125, but it would be well worth it: still much cheaper than everything but the stripped down last generation Wii that Nintendo will allow those who do not want to pay $300 for their Wii U. It would be even better if they were to copy (steal) the Roku Wi-Fi remote concept for the Apple TV remote/controller, so no matter where you point the controller (no worry about IR line of sight nonsense that the Wii and the Kinect impose on you) it will still work, so gaming will be all about response time and pressing the right button, not doing those while continuing to have to point it in the right direction. Roku 3 already has a version of this, and so do the mirroring type games where you use your tablet or phone as the controller, but Apple could do it better - do it RIGHT - with the Apple TV.

 

Then Apple could sell tens of millions of Apple TVs a quarter - driving Roku out of business altogether and forcing Amazon and Chromecast to play catch up - while watching Samsung and Google write down billions of losses with wearables.

 

Sound like a plan?

Couldnt have said it any better. I agree that Amazon is going to flop with their first 'streaming stick' and i honestly not sure if it will ever catch on, everyone has an Apple TV or a Chromecast. I have both and the Chromecast NEVER gets used, but yet i use my Apple TV everyday. You need more than just streaming support. Once Apple has inked a deal with providers so they can provide a cable experience in their new box it will be there next home run i believe, all the cable providers interface suck.  It will be there next home run unless they release the Watch first. 

post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post
 


The smartwatch thing is simple. Instead of making it have the same look and feel of a current generation smart device (which drives up the price while simultaneously making it pretty much useless) instead create and market a device for $200 bucks that is basically an old Blackberry or a cheap Android phone being sold in developing countries.

 

Trutthfully, it doesn't even have to be a touchscreen device. Or if it absolutely must be, you can run Android Gingerbread or Honeycomb on a very small device. It could have like a 3-3.5 inch screen ... basically you could take a stripped down version of the Samsung Galaxy Music and make it a watch. You would still be able to surf the web, do social networking, play certain games, and have it be a standalone device. Square screen, circle screen, octagonal screen ... doesn't matter. People would buy it.

 

Google and Samsung are not very bright for not having thought of this already. OR Apple could retrofit their first I-Phone, released in 2007, into a watch and have it on the market by this time next year for about the same amount of money that they charge for an I-Pad. (Don't roll your eyes, you can get an I-Phone 4s for free with a 2 year contract from most carriers.) If they did that, they would CRUSH the wearables market and single-handledly bring watches back into fashion. That would be an immediate home run, not a single.

 

I wonder how small they could make something as powerful as the original iPhone.

Even then, people are much more sensible nowadays to lag than before. And the first iPhone wasn't very fast relative to current phones.

I still don't see how you could comfortably browse on such a small screen, and you probably couldn't type an email for example. And a lot of people even in developing countries use email as a way of communicating outside of work.

 

The iPhone had a touchscreen that made the user feel closer to it.

 

The iWatch will need something like that. Having a personal assistant superior to the current Siri at your wrist would be one way of marketing it. I would actually change the microphone in Siri to a simple smiley face :)

post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by msalganik View Post
 

Personally the idea of slapping a phone onto my wrist isn't appealing to me but I'm one of those people hoping the 5.5" iPhone rumors are true, so I'm obviously biased. 

I know what you are saying. If I get a legit smartphone, it will be an Android phablet. But then again, I am an old guy who works in IT, and my purchases are based on utility/practicality, not fashion. But remember: we are talking about a consumer market who makes purchasing decisions largely based on whether it is available in a color that matches their shoes and handbag. And Apple has leveraged that heavily: a huge part of their appeal is that their hardware simply has a better look and feel, even vastly superior to its imitators, with the only thing holding back Apple's market share in many respects being cost.

 

But hey, I am just someone who personally likes watches. But I haven't regularly worn a watch since getting a mobile phone either. And you are right ... people talking into a phone and putting it into their ear isn't as practical or cool as it looks in James Bond movies. You would still need a bluetooth headset to make it work, and you can have that with a phone, which is a much superior device. So I guess the wearables market doesn't have the potential that I hope. A niche market for the upscale exercise crowd I guess. And even the vast majority of the gadgets aimed at that market bombs.

post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post

For the millionth time, Apple has launched a bunch of products that did not pan out either. They have had a good run starting with the I-Pod, other devices that built on the I-Pod (I-Phone and I-Pad) as well as with Mac OS X. But get this.

1. Apple has not come out with a new product that is not an iteration of the I-Pod. (I-Phone = I-Pod touch + telephone, I-Pad = large I-Pod touch, App Store = ITunes Store, etc.) Until they do, analysts are going to prefer companies that are trying new things, or at least trying new ways to achieve what Apple and other companies have done. Android (a free, open source OS) is new, even if it is often (but not always) used to emulate Apple products. Social networking is new, or at least newer than Apple's I-line. ChromeOS, FirefoxOS? New. Chromecast and Amazon's new offering? New, or newer than Apple TV. Wearables? New, and who knows it may actually catch on in a year or 3 like it took the I-Pod, I-Phone and I-Pad to. Maybe it just needs someone to come out with a practical device, and a Chinese chip manufacturer (the same one behind the $100 Android tablets that are, well better than the other Chinese Android tablets) that may make them possible: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2138640/newton-is-the-first-mipsbased-minicomputer-for-wearables.html
I still say that the ticket is a standalone smart watch that doesn't need to be tethered to a phone. It is already technologically feasible, even if at this point it is only capable of a very cheap or very early smart phone. Firefox should come out with $200 standalone smart watches for this market instead of $25 smart phones  for developing markets, for instance.

2. You guys need to get your gripes consistent. First, you bash other companies for ripping off Apple (even when they haven't ripped off Apple you guys still claim that they have, like DED did yesterday). Then you guys bash other companies for trying to innovate. Again, what is it that you want? For Apple to be the only technology company on the planet?

Your first point is total wrong. First of all, the iPhone was never
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post

For the millionth time, Apple has launched a bunch of products that did not pan out either. They have had a good run starting with the I-Pod, other devices that built on the I-Pod (I-Phone and I-Pad) as well as with Mac OS X. But get this.

1. Apple has not come out with a new product that is not an iteration of the I-Pod. (I-Phone = I-Pod touch + telephone, I-Pad = large I-Pod touch, App Store = ITunes Store, etc.) Until they do, analysts are going to prefer companies that are trying new things, or at least trying new ways to achieve what Apple and other companies have done. Android (a free, open source OS) is new, even if it is often (but not always) used to emulate Apple products. Social networking is new, or at least newer than Apple's I-line. ChromeOS, FirefoxOS? New. Chromecast and Amazon's new offering? New, or newer than Apple TV. Wearables? New, and who knows it may actually catch on in a year or 3 like it took the I-Pod, I-Phone and I-Pad to. Maybe it just needs someone to come out with a practical device, and a Chinese chip manufacturer (the same one behind the $100 Android tablets that are, well better than the other Chinese Android tablets) that may make them possible: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2138640/newton-is-the-first-mipsbased-minicomputer-for-wearables.html
I still say that the ticket is a standalone smart watch that doesn't need to be tethered to a phone. It is already technologically feasible, even if at this point it is only capable of a very cheap or very early smart phone. Firefox should come out with $200 standalone smart watches for this market instead of $25 smart phones  for developing markets, for instance.

2. You guys need to get your gripes consistent. First, you bash other companies for ripping off Apple (even when they haven't ripped off Apple you guys still claim that they have, like DED did yesterday). Then you guys bash other companies for trying to innovate. Again, what is it that you want? For Apple to be the only technology company on the planet?

Your first point is total wrong. The iPhone line did not evolve from the iPod line at all. It went iPod to mini to nano to video. The iPhone line
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post


The smartwatch thing is simple. Instead of making it have the same look and feel of a current generation smart device (which drives up the price while simultaneously making it pretty much useless) instead create and market a device for $200 bucks that is basically an old Blackberry or a cheap Android phone being sold in developing countries.

Trutthfully, it doesn't even have to be a touchscreen device. Or if it absolutely must be, you can run Android Gingerbread or Honeycomb on a very small device. It could have like a 3-3.5 inch screen ... basically you could take a stripped down version of the Samsung Galaxy Music and make it a watch. You would still be able to surf the web, do social networking, play certain games, and have it be a standalone device. Square screen, circle screen, octagonal screen ... doesn't matter. People would buy it.

Google and Samsung are not very bright for not having thought of this already. OR Apple could retrofit their first I-Phone, released in 2007, into a watch and have it on the market by this time next year for about the same amount of money that they charge for an I-Pad. (Don't roll your eyes, you can get an I-Phone 4s for free with a 2 year contract from most carriers.) If they did that, they would CRUSH the wearables market and single-handledly bring watches back into fashion. That would be an immediate home run, not a single.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post


The smartwatch thing is simple. Instead of making it have the same look and feel of a current generation smart device (which drives up the price while simultaneously making it pretty much useless) instead create and market a device for $200 bucks that is basically an old Blackberry or a cheap Android phone being sold in developing countries.

Trutthfully, it doesn't even have to be a touchscreen device. Or if it absolutely must be, you can run Android Gingerbread or Honeycomb on a very small device. It could have like a 3-3.5 inch screen ... basically you could take a stripped down version of the Samsung Galaxy Music and make it a watch. You would still be able to surf the web, do social networking, play certain games, and have it be a standalone device. Square screen, circle screen, octagonal screen ... doesn't matter. People would buy it.

Google and Samsung are not very bright for not having thought of this already. OR Apple could retrofit their first I-Phone, released in 2007, into a watch and have it on the market by this time next year for about the same amount of money that they charge for an I-Pad. (Don't roll your eyes, you can get an I-Phone 4s for free with a 2 year contract from most carriers.) If they did that, they would CRUSH the wearables market and single-handledly bring watches back into fashion. That would be an immediate home run, not a single.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post


The smartwatch thing is simple. Instead of making it have the same look and feel of a current generation smart device (which drives up the price while simultaneously making it pretty much useless) instead create and market a device for $200 bucks that is basically an old Blackberry or a cheap Android phone being sold in developing countries.

Trutthfully, it doesn't even have to be a touchscreen device. Or if it absolutely must be, you can run Android Gingerbread or Honeycomb on a very small device. It could have like a 3-3.5 inch screen ... basically you could take a stripped down version of the Samsung Galaxy Music and make it a watch. You would still be able to surf the web, do social networking, play certain games, and have it be a standalone device. Square screen, circle screen, octagonal screen ... doesn't matter. People would buy it.

Google and Samsung are not very bright for not having thought of this already. OR Apple could retrofit their first I-Phone, released in 2007, into a watch and have it on the market by this time next year for about the same amount of money that they charge for an I-Pad. (Don't roll your eyes, you can get an I-Phone 4s for free with a 2 year contract from most carriers.) If they did that, they would CRUSH the wearables market and single-handledly bring watches back into fashion. That would be an immediate home run, not a single.

Really? You want a device with 3-3.5 inch screen AND physical input strapped to your wrist? So basically you want a pre iphone Blackberry with a strap. Sorry, that is a terrible idea.
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by atokosch View Post
 

Couldnt have said it any better. I agree that Amazon is going to flop with their first 'streaming stick' and i honestly not sure if it will ever catch on, everyone has an Apple TV or a Chromecast. I have both and the Chromecast NEVER gets used, but yet i use my Apple TV everyday. You need more than just streaming support. Once Apple has inked a deal with providers so they can provide a cable experience in their new box it will be there next home run i believe, all the cable providers interface suck.  It will be there next home run unless they release the Watch first. 

I hope Amazon's stick doesn't flop because I plan to buy it :-). I already have a ton of apps bought through their Kindle store (don't ask ... I was playing around with a cheap Chinese tablet that I bought for programming purposes, turned out it didn't have Google Play) that are waiting for just such a device. I bought an Apple TV but returned it because A) AirPlay didn't work with my last generation I-Pod Touch and B) it did not have Amazon Prime. (Yes, there are people out there capable of appreciating Apple, Android AND Windows products ... I personally get whatever gets the job done that I am willing to pay for. Thinking of getting the latest I-Pad as a Christmas present for the wife as her 3 year old Android tablet cannot play the latest, best apps. She would LOVE the Office for Android on it and likely never use her Windows laptop again.)

 

But Apple is already best suited to come out with a streaming box that is capable of fully maximizing its potential just by leveraging what is already in its ecosystem. Really, all they need to do is marry the existing Apple TV and I-Pod touch functionality and they have a grand slam.

post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtwo View Post

Really? You want a device with 3-3.5 inch screen AND physical input strapped to your wrist? So basically you want a pre iphone Blackberry with a strap. Sorry, that is a terrible idea.


Yeah, I agree. And I still maintain that the I-Phone, I-Pad and I-Pod Touch are devices that came from the same line of thinking, the same "thought base" even if not the same hardware and software base. You can have the same general idea and implement it with radically different technology. Hence, iterations of the same product instead of any of them being radically new technology.

post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post
 


1. Companies do it all the time, including Apple.

2. I must have missed it where Google threw billions at a startup for Google Glass, Android and ChromeOS/ChromeBox or Samsung did the same with Tizen and smart watches.

Android was a stolen product and was developed as an OS for Danger and Kin. It became its own company, Android Inc WHICH WAS BOUGHT BY GOOGLE.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal

 

ChromeOS was Chromium OS which was open source. Most of the good stuff was added by every day non Google coders like Hexxeh. Google then took all of the open source stuff and made ChromeOs.

 

Google Glass has countless prior art, there is nothing special there.

 

Samsung had to do Tizen to get away from Android.

Samsung wouldn't have done a smart watch if rumours of Apple doing theirs hadn't come out.

post #36 of 49

I would already have an android phablet if i didn't hate android. I tried a motorola phone a few years ago and couldn't stand it after two weeks. The interface is much more polished for apple and so I've stuck with them entirely for the software (and the seamless synchronization with my mac), but that hasn't made me want a truly bigger screen any less. I also like to wear a decent watch once in a while (I have a Citizen eco-drive) but that just doesn't get used nearly as much since I got my first iPhone back in '09. I tried going with the iPad mini to satisfy my need for a bigger screen but the truth is I don't want two devices to take with me (the iPad stays home, where I once again wouldn't mind a bigger screen) so once again, bigger phone. I've gotten back into fitness more as of late but even with me going to the gym 5 times a week, I don't see myself ever getting a fit bit or anything like that (I see my friends getting them but I haven't gotten a logical explanation from anyone as to why they actually need/want it). The most I do is use my phone for music and if I go for a run outside (vs treadmill) then I'll use mapmyrun. So once again, I just don't get what the point is of the wearable devices. I don't need to see my stats in excruciating detail.... I keep a little log of how much I lift but that requires a 2 dollar notepad and a pen... not a 100-200 dollar gadget. I'm not that old (30s) and I do love tech (professionally in life science R&D though) but as of late I really don't get a lot of what's going on in Silicone Valley in general. It seems like they're expecting every little thing to be a paradigm shift and game changer so I feel like there is a lot of hype and money being thrown around to get the next big thing without anyone stopping to ask whether or not something is actually addressing a need. All that said, a streamlined, cost-effective device with a great UI could be of great use in a hospital setting, and with the mess that is electronic medical records, Apples elegance could be a huge boon in that market (and it's a HUGE $$$$ market). 

post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
[...]

Samsung had to do Tizen to get away from Android.

Samsung wouldn't have done a smart watch if rumours of Apple doing theirs hadn't come out.

It's more like Samsung saw a faster path to market and rode that horse until the foal in the barn was old enough to ride.

 

Tizen is from the LiMo project which was created (just) before the iPhone was introduced, and before you could get Android from Google.   It was more an effort to avoid licensing costs of WiMo and Nokia/Symbian.  

 

Samsung worked on LiMo for a while, but committed to Android 18 months later (Nov 2007), and  put LiMo/Tizen on hold until 2011.

post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by vtwo View Post

Really? You want a device with 3-3.5 inch screen AND physical input strapped to your wrist? So basically you want a pre iphone Blackberry with a strap. Sorry, that is a terrible idea.

 

I think the key here is ecosystem.   The problem in the past is that your watch, pda, mp3, phone, laptop, and TV SetTop Box desktop were all separate ecosystems.   

 

I'd rather have countless specialized workers all part of the same 'collective' than trying to engineer integration between 5-10 different systems.

Even if they didn't evolve from the same HW/SW design base, their integration frameworks are seamlessly integrated.    

 

ITMS.  AppleID.  Secure Enclave.  AppStore.   iCloud.   iWork.    A heckuva lot more important than the A7 chip or gorilla glass or AAC vs MP3 (and they are important).

 

That's why an iPod and an iPhone and AppleTV and Mac iTunes work well together, and why MS has failed so badly in the consumer market (I'm a man of a certain age, where you ability to integrate your work environment through PERL, batch scripts, helper apps, DCL, TCL, was a mark of distinction... now it's poor use of a stubborn person's time.)

 

Again, alluding to the baseball analogy (I know I said I wouldn't), I'd rather have  12 utility players and one or 2 big hitters who 'know how to play the game as a team', than 12 big hitters who take 3 big cuts every at bat, because 'home runs' are the only thing that is important.

post #39 of 49
Apple's next product? They desperately need to focus on substantially improving if not perfecting the software products and processes they do have.

iBooks is really awful. The syncing between iBooks on iOS and the cloud (ibooks on the mac) performs poorly. One cannot change the info about the iBooks, especially the PDFs one might import. In iBooks (and Kindle and Nook, etc) one cannot have multiple documents (books) open at the same time.

Apple's iWork, iBooks Author and ePub do not support math and science symbols. Needs to get done.

iBooks does not support highlighting or placing notes in imported PDF documents. Needs to.

iBooks does not support support the kind of note taking that is required for "digesting" book content.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

 

I think the key here is ecosystem.   The problem in the past is that your watch, pda, mp3, phone, laptop, and TV SetTop Box desktop were all separate ecosystems.  

 

I'd rather have countless specialized workers all part of the same 'collective' than trying to engineer integration between 5-10 different systems.

Even if they didn't evolve from the same HW/SW design base, their integration frameworks are seamlessly integrated.  

 

ITMS.  AppleID.  Secure Enclave.  AppStore.   iCloud.   iWork.    A heckuva lot more important than the A7 chip or gorilla glass or AAC vs MP3 (and they are important).

 

That's why an iPod and an iPhone and AppleTV and Mac iTunes work well together, and why MS has failed so badly in the consumer market (I'm a man of a certain age, where you ability to integrate your work environment through PERL, batch scripts, helper apps, DCL, TCL, was a mark of distinction... now it's poor use of a stubborn person's time.)

 

Again, alluding to the baseball analogy (I know I said I wouldn't), I'd rather have  12 utility players and one or 2 big hitters who 'know how to play the game as a team', than 12 big hitters who take 3 big cuts every at bat, because 'home runs' are the only thing that is important.

 

Very well said.  An iPod without iTunes would have been a flop.  The iPhone and iPad sell each other.  Whatever Apple rolls out that is supposed to strap to our wrists (and it won't primarily be a watch), will fit into this ecosystem in a great way (or they simply won't release it).  Apple is not going to stick an old iPhone into a watch, stick a low price on it, and toss it into the market.  It might sell, but it wouldn't fit their corporate vision.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › After a series of 'home runs,' it'd be OK if Apple's next product is a 'single,' Evercore says