or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple trademark update suggests company may enter jewelry business, hinting at rumored 'iWatch'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple trademark update suggests company may enter jewelry business, hinting at rumored 'iWatch' - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Don't forget: Tim Cook has already announced the iRing. 1wink.gif

I'm holding out for the iBooger. It's powered by a little paddle wheel that's sent whirling as you breath in and out. The iBooger is neatly concealed inside the nose except for a bit that dandles down near the mouth to talk into. The Google Glass people will eat this up!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

`I'm 100% serious.

If these confused people were diagnosed with a tape worm in their intestines, would they claim to be a fan of the parasite, while it's eating away at them?

Don't be silly. Tapeworms make the ideal pet. Goes where you go, eats what you eat. You never have to clean up after them or let them go outside in the middle of the night.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I’m honestly uncertain how you could be. At all.

 

You could possibly be okay with purchasing Samsung construction equipment and Apple electronics, but Samsung is Samsung, regardless of their industry.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

 

`I'm 100% serious.

 

I don't see how any informed person could possibly claim to be a fan of Apple and another company which leeches and copies from Apple. 

I am a fan of tech, not an obsessed fan of one company. Apple is known for copying, and with those copies they have done great things. So copying is good.

post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Don't be silly. Tapeworms make the ideal pet. Goes where you go, eats what you eat. You never have to clean up after them or let them go outside in the middle of the night.

I just hate it when they bust through my intestines and start eating my organs. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Don't be silly. Tapeworms make the ideal pet. Goes where you go, eats what you eat. You never have to clean up after them or let them go outside in the middle of the night.

I often used to be accused of harbouring a tapeworm due to my prodigious appetite whilst remaining thin. They say that they can reside in you for years without your noticing. I would suggest it as a cure for obesity, but I imagine that there's risk from infection and other unpleasantries.
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I'm holding out for the iBooger. It's powered by a little paddle wheel that's sent whirling as you breath in and out. The iBooger is neatly concealed inside the nose except for a bit that dandles down near the mouth to talk into. The Google Glass people will eat this up!

Ha ha! I thought my iNoseRing was the be all and end all, but you've surpassed it. I’ll have to rack my brains...

Edit: got it! In combination with the iBooger, Apple will introduce the iToe. This will be a clever little ring for the big toe. It will have sensors that connect via Bluetooth to the iBooger. The olfactory sensor will transmit the foot odour. Depending on the sweatiness of the foot/type of trainer etc., different types of cheese can be sampled. At a dinner party, iBeacons enable your guests to take advantage of your podiatric samples.
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 4/22/14 at 4:03am
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 


thats my point.  They will be willing to pay $100 for a cheap Rolex knockoff but not $5000.  At that point most people will just shell out $10,000 to get a real rolex.

 

Samdung/Google/Microsoft won't be able to sell jewery at a 20% discount and beat Apple.  People are willing to pay a premium for jewerly.  Only if they price it 90% cheaper will they get significant sales.  No way on earth can they do that in the jewery segment.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post



You're saying that Rolex had no hope when Texas Instrument offered $20 digital watches in 1977. Interestingly enough TI is out of the watch business and Rolex is still going strong. Cheap crap cannot compete in the luxury market.

 

So what % of the world population buys luxury watches, and do you know the world watch market is about $10B which includes the luxury brands, So what % of this market is Apple looking to capture, or do you think they grow this market segment form $10B to $20B or maybe more. Here is the market share by revenue, so who do you think Apple will displace or knocked down. BTW China is now the #1 purchaser of Luxury brand watches.

 

 

Notice in this chart that most of the interest in luxury watches are declining except in China and Russia, and some other Asian countries.

 

here are the numbers, Most of the growth is from China newly wealthy people buying watches, and also the fast the metal pricing have been increasing so the cost of luxury watches have been going up in price so the total revenue has increase because of this. So what is is about an Apple Watch which will somehow make this industry grow like it never seen before.

 

Do not read in to the Statement (watch sales are rising despite smartphones) it was made by some guy trying to hype Samsung and their watch and why Samsung will make a ton of money on it. He ignored the fast that metal pricing has been increasing more than the actual sell growth of watches.

 


Edited by Maestro64 - 4/22/14 at 9:58am
post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I hope it's the next iPod Nano: one you can wear on your wrist, but smaller. If anyone can do smaller, thinner, lighter and make it matter, it's Apple.

The slap strap design they patented makes the most sense for an iPod as it appeals to kids and the fitness crowd and doesn't need apps - it's mostly tapping. They'd have to change their headphones to work over Bluetooth so they either need a headband or a way to attach buds individually to each ear with batteries in each. Jony Ive designed white hearing aids in the past so I guess he could make them like that but the headband would be a more appealing style, albeit less portable. Possibly they can get a design to fill up the Concha (they should avoid using that term as it has more than one meaning). This would keep it in place in each ear without a band and they could even have a sticky surface like you get with iPad holders. You don't want to be left with a sticky Concha of course but the stickiness with iPad holders is some kind of nano gripping.

Those kind of bluetooth headphones would be good for computer use too. They just need a good way to charge them like induction or batteries that pop out and have USB ports on them so they can be plugged into a wall adaptor or computer port and you can buy multiple to keep switching them.

The iPod Shuffle could even be inside the ear buds and you tap them to shuffle songs and the Nano is there for more storage and being able to see playlists as well as fitness data.

This kind of design limits them somewhat from use with better quality headphones though unless they have a common wireless tech with those or a 3.5mm jack on one of the ear pieces.
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
So what % of the world population buys luxury watches, and do you know the world watch market is about $10B which includes the luxury brands, So what % of this market is Apple looking to capture, or do you think they grow this market segment form $10B to $20B or maybe more. Here is the market share by revenue, so who do you think Apple will displace or knocked down. BTW China is now the #1 purchaser of Luxury brand watches.

 

 

Notice in this chart that most of the interest in luxury watches are declining except in China and Russia, and some other Asian countries.

 

here are the numbers, Most of the growth is from China newly wealthy people buying watches, and also the fast the metal pricing have been increasing so the cost of luxury watches have been going up in price so the total revenue has increase because of this. So what is is about an Apple Watch which will somehow make this industry grow like it never seen before.

 

If Apple were to be so dense as to go up against entrenched luxury manufactures with a product that does not offer additional value, then they will fail. It would have been the same results with the iPhone. Additionally, Apple does not measure their success by "market share," That has never been part of their DNA. By positioning themselves in the Luxury segment of the market, Apple knows that (1) they can add the high markup  that they desire, (2) Their product will not be categorized with other very similar commodity products, (3) and Apple's other products, such as the iPhone and iPad will take on the aura of a luxury product and keep them from being commoditized as Samsung would be happy to see.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post
 

 

If Apple were to be so dense as to go up against entrenched luxury manufactures with a product that does not offer additional value, then they will fail. 

 

Thank you.

 

When this conversation comes up, I think many wrong assumptions are made. Maybe these assumptions arise because we keep calling this proposed product "iWatch" (perhaps the name is a bit misleading in that sense - if that is indeed what Apple even call it, if they even release it).

 

My observations about this (in terms of challenging some existing assumptions) would be:

 

1. Apple are definitely not competing with existing watches - "iWatch" implies a very different product.

 

2. The existing "smart watch" market is in its infancy. There are very few devices available, and absolutely none of these are breakthrough products that have defined the category. An analogy might be the tablet market pre-iPad (and that would be a generous comparison).

 

3. It is highly likely that the Apple product - if it materialises - will not closely resemble existing "smart watches" (in the same way that iPhone did not closely resemble existing smart phones at the time). That is, Apple are most likely to look to establish a brand new product category with this device, in large part due to the previous two reasons.

 

I think these three clarifications help to better define the scope of the conversation. Of course, we can't know for sure what the approach will be until Apple reveal a product, however, I think these three premises are safe to put forward given the history and what we should know about Apple's approach to products generally.

post #51 of 54

What people failed to understand other than the Personal computer Apple has not develop entire new market, which some people think will have with the so called iwatch. The ipod was just an extension of portable music player industries, The market size was well know and you knew how many people bought music players of some sort or own music content in various medium. The same goes for the iphone, cell phone was a well understood market so it could be determined how much business Apple could achieve. Yes Apple did it better than anyone else, but they did not make people who would have never bought a cell phone or music player all of a sudden fork over movie for these devices. 

 

To think Apple is going to create an entire new market around iwatch is is far reaching, what could this device do that nothing else does today which everyone in the world will need and want. Even with it having biometric capabilities that only hits a small mark of people, and watches now only hit a small market of people, if act like a phone, well that only attract the geek factor, talking to your wrist has social issue, like talking to your bluetooth ear piece in public place, it not socially acceptable. So what make anyone think that Apple will come up with a product which everyone must have which solve and need or desire that everyone has. If you believe the rumors, apple is applying for trademark in the jewelry/watch classification so that mean is going to be jewelry/watch and it going to be costly so it puts in the luxury space so talking about a small mark of people who can or want to afford it.

 

Again it does not make sense, Apple is looking to grow into a market which is only $10B in revenue, more people buy cell phone, mp3 players and computer than buy any watch of any kind to day. Yeah they can combine it all in one, but that is what the iphone is already, and you do not have to look stupid talking to your wrist.

post #52 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

 The market size was well know and you knew how many people bought music players of some sort or own music content in various medium. The same goes for the iphone, cell phone was a well understood market so it could be determined how much business Apple could achieve. Yes Apple did it better than anyone else, but they did not make people who would have never bought a cell phone or music player all of a sudden fork over movie for these devices. 

 

 

You're half right here, but not entirely.

Strictly speaking, Apple did not "invent" the smart phone - and so, yes, there was an existing market for smart phones. But there are some subtle points that are missed in your argument here.

 

The first thing to understand is that markets and product categories are not necessarily one in the same. You can create a new product category that attracts a certain existing market, and which also extends that market with new consumers. Apple definitely did this with the iPhone - that is, it didn't just take market share from BlackBerry, but it also extended and expanded the market to find entirely new customers (many millions of them).

 

There are many, many people whose first smart phone was an iPhone, and whose first MP3 player was an iPod. In fact, these people were  the majority of the market by a wide margin.

 

Prior to iPod, existing MP3 players were fiddling at the fringe. There was no mass market. iPod radically changed that.

 

In the case of iWatch, I would argue that Apple must do both of these things - create a new product category and a new market. There is no logical sense in chasing either a) the existing watch market (because an iWatch is not a "watch") and b) chasing the existing "smart watch" market (of which there is virtually none anyway - and what is there is far from established).

post #53 of 54

^ I agree with your assessment, and if some how Apple can bridge the watch (timepiece), phone add-on accessory, fitness/health accessory, and ect into a device that everyone must have/need then they may have a hit.

 

They part I am struggling with is the must have/need concept. It took almost 20 yrs before the everyday person realize they need to have a computer in their home, it took the killer app before that happen which was the Internet. Everyone listens to music and there are plenty of things prior to the Ipod that said if you can do it better people will buy it. First it was phonoplayer (but only people with money could had them) then came radio, but then you had to listen to what they decided you should listen to , then records, 8 tracks, cassettes, CD, then MP3, but MP3 prior to ipod took an engineering degree to use. Mobile phones was an obvious thing, everyone had a phone in their house, and have used two way radios so why not a cell phone. it was not until they figure out how to make an inexpensive cell phone did it become popular. The iphone taped in to the a need first, then it was icon thing, after those who has lots of disposable income buy iphones, other people gave up buying other things like computers for the home just to have an iphone. Today the smart-phone and table is replacing the computer. 

 

So the question stands what will the iwatch if it does exist, tap into, what thing will it replace or do better than what you already have. Today I walk around with a laptop for work, a cell phone, a watch on my wrist (since I am old school), I have my ipad, and my car keys and wallet. Today, I can not see replacing any of those things for something else. BTW, my watch is durable, I can bang it into things and it will not break, it is water proof, so it been in many feet of water and never have to worry about it, and I replace its battery once every three years so when I wake up in the morning it always has the correct time and never have to worry whether I remember to charge it last night. The same goes for my wallet, the CC always work and do not have to worry about my battery being dead after I just went out to dinner with the family, and forgot that I was on my phone all day and now died and can not pay my bill with my e-wallet.

post #54 of 54

Nike's CEO said today that they are essentially getting out of the Fuel Band business and they will focus on software going forward. They are excited to see what Apple does next (his actual statement was a bit longer). To me, that sounds like they are ceding the wearables and will enhance whatever Apple delivers with their software.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/nike-ceo-confirms-fuelband-focus-now-on-software-not-hardware/


Edited by SpamSandwich - 4/25/14 at 4:21pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple trademark update suggests company may enter jewelry business, hinting at rumored 'iWatch'