or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple predicted to sell 'iWatch' to at least 10% of existing iPhone users in 2015
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple predicted to sell 'iWatch' to at least 10% of existing iPhone users in 2015

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
With Apple widely expected to launch a wearable "iWatch" later this year, market watchers have begun to speculate exactly how many wrist-worn devices the company could sell, with one new projection pegging the device with at least 10 percent penetration among iPhone users in the first full year.


"iWatch" concept render by Martin Hajek.


With an estimated active iPhone installed base of 335 million users by the end of 2014, analyst Keith Bachman of BMO Capital Markets believes Apple could sell at least 33.5 million of a so-called "iWatch" in calendar year 2015. That figure, revealed in a note to investors this week obtained by AppleInsider, represents the analyst's low-end projection.

If Apple were to somehow tap in to 15 percent of existing iPhone owners, it would mean sales of 50.3 million "iWatch" units. And if 20 percent of the projected iPhone installed base were to buy, Apple would sell 67 million units in 2015.

Bachman's figures assume an average selling price of $250 per unit with gross margins around 25 percent. With those projections, he believes 10 percent penetration among iPhone owners would add 3.1 percent to Apple's calendar year 2015 earnings per share, while 20 percent adoption would add 6.2 percent to 2015 EPS.




"We think a key driver of adoption will be meaningful applications," Bachman wrote. "We believe that the initial focus will be health and fitness applications, but to reach 20% adoption levels, Apple will need to have more applications than just health and fitness, to include applications for professional/work usage."

BMO Capital Markets has maintained its "outperform" rating for AAPL stock with a newly revised price target of $98, reflecting the 7-for-one split that occurred with shares on Monday.

Rumors of an Apple "iWatch" have proven so persistent that many on Wall Street, such as Bachman, are treating it as an inevitability. Reports have pegged the device for an October debut, which would make it available to purchase in time for the lucrative holiday shopping season.

One report from earlier this month claimed that Apple was "confident" in the product, and planned to build up to 5 million units per month. If the company were to maintain that pace throughout 2015, that would mean shipments of 60 million units -- on the high end of Bachman's prediction.

That same report claimed that the "iWatch" will sport a curved OLED touchscreen, and that it will track sleep activity, blood oxygen levels, blood glucose, and even aid in keeping tabs on calorie consumption. The device is also expected to connect to a user's iPhone, allowing them to read messages and accomplish tasks without pulling the device out of their pocket.

If Apple were to sell even Bachman's low-end prediction of 33.5 million "iWatch" units, it would likely represent the most successful product launch, in terms of units sold, in the company's history. The first-generation iPad was considered a major success when it debuted in 2010 and sold 14.8 million units in its first 12 months. In comparison, the first-generation iPhone sold just 6.1 million units in its first year.
post #2 of 46
One can only hope they won't look like that!!!
post #3 of 46
These analysts should cram their iWatch predictions.
Edited by SpamSandwich - 6/13/14 at 6:45am

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 46
These articles make me sad. There is no scientific method involved. It's wishes and desires compiled by even more guesses which is no different than school children sitting around talking about what think would be cool, except this info Is sold as an authority which puts it in the categorry of shysters such as psychics and fortune tellers.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #5 of 46
All these MartinHajekInsider concepts are way off base. You'll see. Like those pre-iPhone "iPhone concepts" or pre-iPad "iSlate tablet concepts".

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #6 of 46

Yet more bullshit predictions based on nothing! Why do these get posted? Who really cares about bullshit predictions based on hopes and dreams that are wrong 99% of the time?

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 #7 of 46
Watches like this are not inherently a bad idea. People have been wearing wrist watches for 100 years, but I saw a galaxy watch on a wrist yesterday and I'm sorry, but it was a bright and gaudy dork beacon. It was so big and bright it just turned me right off. I would never wear something like that. Most watch designs are subtle and understated. They serve a function without drawing attention to themselves. Before you jump on me, I know there are exceptions to every rule and bling is big in some cultures. Take a look a Patek Philippe or Rolex for classy and understated.

Galaxy gear screams dork almost as loudly as google glass. They are almost giving galaxy watches away free here in canada $50 with a new phone.

I'm just saying the watch has to be functional and understated. This is something apple excels at.
Edited by samiam - 6/13/14 at 7:25am
I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them Samiam.
Reply
I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them Samiam.
Reply
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfhow1 View Post

One can only hope they won't look like that!!!

I second that motion. I don't wear a watch anymore (retired) and if I did, I'd wear my fashionable Swiss Army watch with red dial. I don't need to know the exact time all the time. Is the sun up? Then it must be daytime.

 

If I were to get an "iWatch" I'd want to make sure it was very minimal, didn't make my wrist sweat, was absolutely waterproof (not just water resistant), shock proof, and did more than just show me the time (not much more than this however). What I don't need it to do is play music, show me the weather (I'm in the weather), or check email or iMessages. I wouldn't mind it checking my blood pressure and hear rate and monitoring for odd fluctuations, reporting those to my Mac and possibly to a health service. I'm not a kid so I have to start thinking about a health monitor for when I really get old.

post #9 of 46

I agree with the numbers....

 

EXCEPT for the assumption that there will be a 10% sell through.

 

And the ASP.   

 

The $250 for 'an accessory' won't cut it.    If it's over $199 I'll be surprised, given that a new phone in the US costs that much.

10% is high for 2015...   First off, no one with a 4, 4s, and likely a 5 will be able to use them to their full potential (I think the m7 chip will be critical), which means only 25% of the installed base (by their numbers, maybe 75M) will buy... and then maybe 25% of the new buyers of the iPhone 6 (and 6c) (75M)...  

 

So by my guess... it will be more like 5% sell through... and I'm guessing $149 ASP...  so instead of .22 a share, it will be more like .05 share.   At $100/share...   That's almost background noise.

 

The key to looking at iWatch is Apps (and icloud storage).   Health Apps will be much more expensive... $10/$100, and likely an annual renewal fee, especially if there is any sort of insurance (think medicare) reimbursement.   If you buy 3 $33 apps... that's $30 retained revenue, probably $15 gross profits.  A Year.   also getting likely $5  from 50% buying iCloud to save their EKGs to the cloud.... forever.  So that initial $149 (likely $50 gross profits) over a 3 year life span makes you about $120.  On top of your current capitated AppStore purchases.   That's like selling hardware at 85% margin.

 

Give away the razor, sell the blades.

post #10 of 46
Everyone needs a phone; no one needs a watch. This will surprise me if it's a big seller.
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
post #11 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Everyone needs a phone; no one needs a watch. This will surprise me if it's a big seller.

 

Baloney.  Nobody needs a phone.  They didn't even exist until the mid 1800s.  And yet the species evolved anyway.  Don't confuse need with want.

post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Baloney.  Nobody needs a phone.  They didn't even exist until the mid 1800s.  And yet the species evolved anyway.  Don't confuse need with want.

You don't need a watch anymore if your phone can tell you the time. A watch was a necessity to tell what time it was. How else could you?
People have always needed to communicate -prior to phones people used pigeons and your point is?
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

You don't need a watch anymore if your phone can tell you the time. A watch was a necessity to tell what time it was. How else could you?
People have always needed to communicate -prior to phones people used pigeons and your point is?

So your argument is that any iWatch from Apple only have a benefit of being able to tell time and no other capabilities thay make it useful in its own right. Sounds like you really thought this through¡

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #14 of 46

Why does AppleInsider propagate this absolute drivel? Not a single fucking person outside of an inner circle at Apple knows if the iWatch exists, what it looks like, or what the features might be. Not to mention cost. Yet every fucking day there's an article about sales predictions? And AI publishes this shit?

post #15 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

Yet more bullshit predictions based on nothing! Why do these get posted? Who really cares about bullshit predictions based on hopes and dreams that are wrong 99% of the time?

You are on a RUMOR website.  Their goal is to post stories of this nature, pure speculation without fact.  If you don't like it, go over to Macworld.

post #16 of 46
An iWatch or some sort of wearable device is coming - make no mistake about that. Hopefully for the sake of the fashion conscious freaks and for the sake of shareholders, Apple will find a way to add value to it - like a choice of strap colours at €50 a pop.
post #17 of 46

This wearable's thing is going to turn into another market share pissing contest by the news media and Wall Street.  I honestly don't understand why everything is about market share.  If Apple were to sell 30 million wearable devices they would instantly take major market share and then it'll constantly be about how Apple is losing market share to Samsung and Motorola and Pebble or whatever.  Why can't the focus be on how good the devices are for consumers?  Samsung dominates the wearable's market after flooding it with Galaxy Gear 1 & 2.  More power to them.  They're probably selling as many as the market can bear.  Not great but better than nothing.

post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So your argument is that any iWatch from Apple only have a benefit of being able to tell time and no other capabilities thay make it useful in its own right. Sounds like you really thought this through¡


No I'm simply saying that unlike the iPhone which is a necessity (communication) no one can state how an iWatch would warrant that description- to obsess on one's constant health monitoring? That's a necessity ? This if anything is a want product not a need product.
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
post #19 of 46
How did they get this estimate? Oh yeah, I saw an analyst bent over with another analyst pulling a number out of the first one's ass.

There is no iwatch and we don't know what it does.
post #20 of 46
I have no idea what Apples sales will be like, however if some of the rumors are to be believed I don't even see how it is remotely possible for Apple to sell this watch for$150 as some have suggested. Some of the rumors imply really advanced electronics packaging that in and of itself is expensive. Beyond that I can see Apple reaching for Gross margins that exceeded all previous products to match what is seen in the jewelry industry. In other words I'd be shocked to see a cheap iWatch.

Beyond all of that I don't see the demand there, in the numbers being thrown about. It comes back to this, who needs to keep track of all of these bodily parameters? If you have a medical condition the device would have to be regulated by the FDA, Which might actually spur sales if Apple can validate a product that is better than what we have today. However Apple has no experience with the regulated world. If the device isn't regulated as a diagnostic machine then it is only of value to people that think they are sick.
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I have no idea what Apples sales will be like, however if some of the rumors are to be believed I don't even see how it is remotely possible for Apple to sell this watch for$150 as some have suggested. Some of the rumors imply really advanced electronics packaging that in and of itself is expensive. Beyond that I can see Apple reaching for Gross margins that exceeded all previous products to match what is seen in the jewelry industry. In other words I'd be shocked to see a cheap iWatch.

Beyond all of that I don't see the demand there, in the numbers being thrown about. It comes back to this, who needs to keep track of all of these bodily parameters? If you have a medical condition the device would have to be regulated by the FDA, Which might actually spur sales if Apple can validate a product that is better than what we have today. However Apple has no experience with the regulated world. If the device isn't regulated as a diagnostic machine then it is only of value to people that think they are sick.

Well said.
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
 
And still waiting for SolipsismX to prove his accusation:
"And yet they haven't loved Google Wallet which you claimed was the exact same thing and kept posting...
Reply
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post
 

You are on a RUMOR website.  Their goal is to post stories of this nature, pure speculation without fact.  If you don't like it, go over to Macworld.

 

More like just a site that pushes out terribly edited things not related to Apple (Samsung Insider) and BS like this. Nobody else spews out this bullshit stuff. I swear AI gets worse and worse everyday. 

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 #23 of 46

Not me. I have no desire to wear a watch. Or glasses. Ever.

post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

These articles make me sad. There is no scientific method involved. It's wishes and desires compiled by even more guesses which is no different than school children sitting around talking about what think would be cool, except this info Is sold as an authority which puts it in the categorry of shysters such as psychics and fortune tellers.

Please don't insult shysters, psychics, and fortune tellers....

post #25 of 46

The so called ‘Iwatch’ will go the same way as the ‘ITV’, i will NOT launch and all the speculation will be lost as with the ‘ITV’

 

When ‘folded’ displays/leds/oleds will be common in a few years, maybe then but now in 2014-15, no way!

 

In my view, the ‘added value’ of an ‘Iwatch’ is useless so long as the battery and the integration are not solved, there is NO way the ‘new digital’ watches have the same ‘life’ span as analog watches.

 

If the Iwatch has a battery lifespan as, say, 16 or 24 hours, will we everyday need to charge it? just as the iphone, ipad, Itouch...my god...just to tell the time and the bloodpressure / heartbeat ? what’s the use ? where is the extra value ? telephone calls ? are we going to ’talk’ to our ‘Iwatch’, come on...

 

iMessage / sms on the watch, WOW big revolution, music on the ‘Iwatch’, yeah right...and we will pay 150 - 300 $ for this...?

 

I have serious doubs about this, but hey.

Just my personal opinion. :-)

 

Have a very nice WE !

post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Baloney.  Nobody needs a phone.  They didn't even exist until the mid 1800s.  And yet the species evolved anyway.  Don't confuse need with want.

Neither did the polio vaccine. And yet the species evolved anyway.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

I agree with the numbers....

EXCEPT for the assumption that there will be a 10% sell through.

And the ASP.   

The $250 for 'an accessory' won't cut it.    If it's over $199 I'll be surprised, given that a new phone in the US costs that much.
10% is high for 2015...   First off, no one with a 4, 4s, and likely a 5 will be able to use them to their full potential (I think the m7 chip will be critical), which means only 25% of the installed base (by their numbers, maybe 75M) will buy... and then maybe 25% of the new buyers of the iPhone 6 (and 6c) (75M)...  

So by my guess... it will be more like 5% sell through... and I'm guessing $149 ASP...  so instead of .22 a share, it will be more like .05 share.   At $100/share...   That's almost background noise.

The key to looking at iWatch is Apps (and icloud storage).   Health Apps will be much more expensive... $10/$100, and likely an annual renewal fee, especially if there is any sort of insurance (think medicare) reimbursement.   If you buy 3 $33 apps... that's $30 retained revenue, probably $15 gross profits.  A Year.   also getting likely $5  from 50% buying iCloud to save their EKGs to the cloud.... forever.  So that initial $149 (likely $50 gross profits) over a 3 year life span makes you about $120.  On top of your current capitated AppStore purchases.   That's like selling hardware at 85% margin.

Give away the razor, sell the blades.

Dude, you should work for them. At least your analysis was based in some facts and common sense. I second your post. Do you have a wish list of what should be in the watch?
post #28 of 46
Dudes I love to see fog rolling in from the beach in the morning. It really improves the scenery, and then the fog vanishes and you can see clearly again. IT looks like we are in for at least three more months of "June gloom", not just in the morning, but all day and far into the night, until the iWatch is released in (rumored) September. Because fog is clouding the brain of any graphic artist who has ever done an "artists conception" of the "Apple iPhone".
post #29 of 46
Where did the analyst get this 335 million figure for active iPhones by end of 2014? Did he canvas all the telecoms of the world? As far as I'm concerned, this figure makes no sense - and here is why:

There are about half a billion iPhones out there. The iWatch, widely believed to be a companion device, will require low-energy Bluetooth to communicate with an iPhone. Therefore, only iPhones starting with the iPhone 4s should be counted. Apple has sold about 370 million such iPhones (iPhone 4s, 5, 5c, and 5s) thus far. As there is no way of knowing how many of these are "active", one must assume 100%. Since the iWatch will come out at the same time as the iPhone 6, we must add it to the figure too. Given that the iPhone 5s/5c sold 51 million in its first quarter of availability, it's not a stretch to assume that the iPhone 6 will sell at least 60 million units. So the total "market" for an iWatch is 430 million iPhones. 10% of that would be 43 million iWatches.

But wait - wouldn't the iWatch also be able to mate with an iPad and/or iPod Touch? If so, that would yield a few more million iWatches.

But my guess is that Apple will sell around 15 million - because that's all Apple is apparently ordering per month...I doubt the factories that will build the iWatch will be able to ramp up production three-fold within the first quarter.
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

The $250 for 'an accessory' won't cut it.    If it's over $199 I'll be surprised, given that a new phone in the US costs that much.

 

Perhaps.  But just as likely, the device will sell for $299 - as that is about the price the competition seemed to have zeroed in on.  Sure, they haven't exactly been that successful, but on the other hand, the iWatch is expected to have a much better feature set and Apple does tend to charge a premium for their premium, well-integrated products.  I wouldn't have a problem paying $250 for 'an accessory' - if it had most of features that are being bandied about (health, notifications, Siri).  Just because the subsidized iPhone is $199 doesn't mean an accessory can't cost more.  The real price of an iPhone - and which is what much of the world pays for an iPhone - is $650+....paying less than half that for a useful accessory isn't too much....for 10% of iPhone owners.

post #31 of 46

If Apple is heading into the wearable devices market I'm all for it. Whatever expands the brand as long as they continue to make quality products is fine with me. That being said however, I will not be a customer for it. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything I would personally use it for that isn't already satisfied by my iPhone or MBP. 

 

Oh, and my needless and unfounded sales prediction is 19 million units sold in 2015. I feel like an analyst now! 

post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post


No I'm simply saying that unlike the iPhone which is a necessity (communication) no one can state how an iWatch would warrant that description- to obsess on one's constant health monitoring? That's a necessity ? This if anything is a want product not a need product.

 

I'd buy an iWatch in a blink if it would turn my iPod Touch into an iPhone (via Continuity).

Think about it. Having all the antenna's around your wrist would turn all Apple devices into an iPhone. In this scenario the iWatch is a must have item.

On a more controversial note: Having the antenna's around your wrist would greatly reduce the amount of potential hazardous radiation as your wrist is on the outer end of your body. 

post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmythe00 View Post




Dude, you should work for them. At least your analysis was based in some facts and common sense. I second your post. Do you have a wish list of what should be in the watch?

As society in general has bought into the sugar industry enormously since the 1960s, witnessed by epidemic numbers of people who struggle every day with weight control, a device that accurately senses blood glucose levels, combined with education, could do very well. Even devoid of greater functionality, although such would go along, the iWatch could be a hit. The question is whether or not a miniature spectrometer could be built into a chassis. Probably not but the payoff would be huge. As for me, I'd like a conventional design with physical hands and hour marks, limited visual output, inductive charging and wireless connectivity in a completely sealed device.


Edited by IQatEdo - 6/14/14 at 7:35pm
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogCowabunga View Post

Dudes I love to see fog rolling in from the beach in the morning... IT looks like we are in for at least three more months of "June gloom", not just in the morning, but all day and far into the night...

A San Diego aficionado. La Jolla under the 'June Gloom' or even a 'May Grey' are no less wonderful places. :-)

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #35 of 46
It's not a prediction, it's a projection.

First Apple's installed iphone base likely isn't 335million if that's what's sold since 2007. Half of those phones probably aren't being used.
Second, many are in other countries where the I watch may not even sell for mist of the year.

So it's really more of an IF-THEN article. It's supposed to get you to think about how it could affect apple's revenue and stock prices, etc. using some semi-arbitrary number to start with, leads you to calculations such as those above.

I'll likely get one, but if I'm spending $100 extra for a 5.5" iPhone 6 extreme! then I may not buy the first version of the iWatch at all because money.
post #36 of 46

Projections and predictions.  How useful are they?  Not worth the paper or digital ink they are written on.  Worthless.

 

I won't predict how many they may or may not sell.  I will say I am skeptical though that this product will amount to what the iphone or ipad success was.  I think this will be more in the family of Apple TV success.  If it was its own company it would be great.  But as part of Apple which is so huge with a 600B market cap and huge revenues it won't move the needle even if it sees what would be considered large success for any "normal" sized company.  Needle movers for a 600B market cap company come rarely.

 

Keep in mind if you combine Apple TV (a good success), all Macintosh desktops and laptops, all accessories plus all ipods they don't even move the needle for Apple in terms of revenue.  Apple is all about iPhone now (over 70%).  About 20% from ipad but that shrunk last quarter so iphone has to make up more slack from that falling off.  The rest is all the other stuff combined.

 

Should iWatch fail to become a needle mover people will slam Cook and the usual Apple innovation is over rhetoric will come.  People will wonder what is after the last big upgrade for the large screen iphone 6.  Without another 3rd killer product category the market may get spooked.

 

Apple will go on printing billions.  Having huge revenues and profits.  However they need to in order to sustain even a 400B market cap (a 33% haircut from today's stock price).  At that level they remain the largest or one of the top 3 largest market caps in the world still.  Not bad.  But I can't see much upside from here.

 

The watch itself has a limited market.  A small fraction of the world is into fitness so if it is fitness centric that limits the market.  It will NOT be subsidized either like iphone so that limits the buy in.  Wearables are largely fashion driven and how many types will they have so people can individualize?  Again it may in its own right do ok if it was a stand alone company but add it to the Apple juggernaut and it won't be noticed.

 

It's like the wife of a billionaire getting a job for 75k a year.  Here, put this with the rest honey.

post #37 of 46
I think there should be two versions. Both will sell in large volume I think

1. Consumer version. Pebble watch like but with apples spin on it. Limit sensors. Sells for $149-$179 This is the version for the mainstream. It'll be an accessory item with a low price point and low margins for apple. This should be adopted in mass due to the price point.

2. Health version. This will be FDA approved. It'll have all the health sensors rumored. It will check sugar, watch heart rate...and come in a high price point. $249-$399. I'm thinking if the device is FDA approved and classified as durable medical equipment the "subsidy" will come in from the insurance companies. This will be a high margin device for apple.

So the folks that need an Apple Pebble will spend $149. Those that need serious health tracking will get a deductible DME device via ins company. Win win for apple and consumer
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmythe00 View Post

I think there should be two versions. Both will sell in large volume I think

1. Consumer version. Pebble watch like but with apples spin on it. Limit sensors. Sells for $149-$179 This is the version for the mainstream. It'll be an accessory item with a low price point and low margins for apple. This should be adopted in mass due to the price point.

2. Health version. This will be FDA approved. It'll have all the health sensors rumored. It will check sugar, watch heart rate...and come in a high price point. $249-$399. I'm thinking if the device is FDA approved and classified as durable medical equipment the "subsidy" will come in from the insurance companies. This will be a high margin device for apple.

So the folks that need an Apple Pebble will spend $149. Those that need serious health tracking will get a deductible DME device via ins company. Win win for apple and consumer

 

Probably the best you will be able to check with a watch is heart rate.  Sugar and blood pressure too hard to do or do accurate for sure.  Also insurance companies don't want to pay for anything.  For them to cover this the glucose monitoring needs an implanted device.  There aren't enough people willing to do this to move the needle for Apple in terms of their overall revenue.  Apple TV while it does quite well it just isn't a needle mover.  It could double or disappear tomorrow and nobody would really notice much in the financials.  Everything is swamped by iPhone, period.

 

Google Glass is bombing big time as most would admit.  I think we will see the same limited success and uptake with iWatch.  It simply is not a smartphone that has such a large total addressable market and well heeled sellers paying huge subsidies (Telecoms).  

 

Also as screens get larger we all realize you need real estate to get things done.  The iWatch tiny screen functionality will have big limits strictly due to the tiny screen size.  Heck even the iPhone 5 seems small now and everyone is clamoring for the largest iphone 6.  ipads took off because of screen size.  Taking a screen down to 1.5" is just going to reduce what functions can be accomplished and also kill almost any ad driven type of model on the device.  

 

The sage has spoken!  Find my post in one year and we'll see how spot on I was or how wrong.

post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post
 

You are on a RUMOR website.... If you don't like it, go over to Macworld.

 

The banner title for the main AI page says "News and rumors since 1997".  So this is not claimed to be an exclusively rumor website. Nor exclusively news.  

 

Please do not banish us back to the Macworld from whence we fled after the site re-design made it tough on the eyes, the autoplay ads made it tough on the ears, and the elimination of discussion forums made it tough on the brain.  Macworld management has been doing everything it can to dumb-down the site and chase away insightful veteran Mac Users.  Many of their valuable staff have been lost, and it is a wonder they even kept on the useful contributions of Mr. Snell, Mr. Breen, Mr. Frakes and Ms. Caldwell. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Macalope exit the site, perhaps moving here, since his target audience has been largely chased away. 

post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

Probably the best you will be able to check with a watch is heart rate.  Sugar and blood pressure too hard to do or do accurate for sure.  Also insurance companies don't want to pay for anything.  For them to cover this the glucose monitoring needs an implanted device.  There aren't enough people willing to do this to move the needle for Apple in terms of their overall revenue.  Apple TV while it does quite well it just isn't a needle mover.  It could double or disappear tomorrow and nobody would really notice much in the financials.  Everything is swamped by iPhone, period.

Google Glass is bombing big time as most would admit.  I think we will see the same limited success and uptake with iWatch.  It simply is not a smartphone that has such a large total addressable market and well heeled sellers paying huge subsidies (Telecoms).  

Also as screens get larger we all realize you need real estate to get things done.  The iWatch tiny screen functionality will have big limits strictly due to the tiny screen size.  Heck even the iPhone 5 seems small now and everyone is clamoring for the largest iphone 6.  ipads took off because of screen size.  Taking a screen down to 1.5" is just going to reduce what functions can be accomplished and also kill almost any ad driven type of model on the device.  

The sage has spoken!  Find my post in one year and we'll see how spot on I was or how wrong.

You may be right but I'm sure the ins companies would prefer to subsidies a sub $400 piece of equipment than to cover an out of control diabetic case due to cumbersome monitoring(there's equipment already out approved by the FDA that does wireless glucose tracking). As for the smaller screen...well...it's not a replacing for any device but an enhancement that allows you to see snapshot info at a glance. Definitely nothing for typing emails or playing angry birds. But for seeing who's calling or a list of recent texts...sure.

I think the watch(either suggested version mentioned) would serve as a notification system extension of your phone vs content creation.

The needle is not going to move much but w each successful non ground breaking product introduced, slowly that pendulum will swing from iPhone to the plethora of other successfully released products.(iwatch Apple TV, ATV gaming, apple search engine...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple predicted to sell 'iWatch' to at least 10% of existing iPhone users in 2015