or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Survey finds 14% of watch-wearers interested in hypothetical $350 Apple 'iWatch'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Survey finds 14% of watch-wearers interested in hypothetical $350 Apple 'iWatch'

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Investment firm Piper Jaffray published the results of a new fashion-focused survey on Tuesday, in which respondents were asked about a rumored Apple "iWatch," with interest in such a device found to vary wildly based on price.

"iWatch" concept by Martin Hajek.


The first-ever "Piper Jaffray Watch & Wearables survey" polled nearly 100 individuals with an average age of 32 years old and household income of $130,000. The survey skewed mostly female, at 61 percent, while almost all respondents were from North America.

While the poll was mostly about fashion and jewelry, it did touch on rumors of an Apple "iWatch" in an attempt to gauge consumer interest. The poll found that 14 percent of consumers would buy an "iWatch" priced at $350.




Among the 86 percent who said they wouldn't buy, Piper Jaffray polled them on pricing, and found that users would be far more interested at a price below $200. However, 41 percent of respondents said they would not be interested in an "iWatch" regardless of the price.

User interest at the $350 price point does fall in line with a survey of general consumers conducted by Piper Jaffray last October, in which 12 percent of respondents said they would buy at that price. And an April poll of teenagers found that 17 percent said they would be interested in an "iWatch" at $350.




Piper Jaffray also found that 18 percent of respondents owned a fitness band, with Fitbit being the most popular brand. Another 13 percent of respondents said they plan to purchase a fitness band in the next year. Only 32 percent of those polled would consider wearing a fitness band and watch at the same time.

Among traditional watch owners, the most popular brand for men was Timex, while women preferred Fossil/Michael Kors, with both taking the respective crowns among preferred brands and next intended purchases for their genders.

As for Apple's iWatch, the company is said to be planning a media event for this October where it's expected to introduce the company's "first wearable device. The "iWatch" is believed to offer fitness and health tracking, and will accordingly tap into the new HealthKit tools for developers that Apple will include in the forthcoming iOS 8 mobile operating system.
post #2 of 47
I wonder how these poll numbers to compare to a then hypothetical Apple Phone? My guess is they are a lot lower.

"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 #3 of 47

Piper Jaffray are the world masters of scientific inquiry and market forecasting. We stand in awe.

post #4 of 47
I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.
post #5 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.

 

Why would it be representative of the "average" person?  It wouldn't be.  Anymore than, say, if you were doing a survey about a hypothetical new Tesla sports car.  Or if you were doing a survey concerning a new design for Ping golf clubs.  Or ... well, you get the idea.

 

What the "average" person thinks is useless in almost any survey like this.  People with low incomes, people with medium incomes, people with huge incomes, people on fixed incomes -- they all represent different interests in different products.

 

There's no real point, for instance, in surveying people with incomes over $250k whether or not they would be more, less, or equally likely to buy a Chromebook if the price were cut by $25.  If someone's making $500k/year, she doesn't give a crap about a $25 difference.  So, there's no value in surveying her.

 

Etc.

post #6 of 47
Of course they don't want one, we don't know what it's capable of yet. Most "smart"phone owners in 2006 would have said they didn't want an iPhone either, especially if you had told them it didn't have a physical keyboard.
post #7 of 47
I guess I just mean you can't say that 14% of watch wearers would buy an iwatch for $350 if you only mean "watch wearers that make 130k". It's fine, it's just not the same stat.
post #8 of 47
Meh not that interested in it.
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I guess I just mean you can't say that 14% of watch wearers would buy an iwatch for $350 if you only mean "watch wearers that make 130k". It's fine, it's just not the same stat.

 

Well, that's just what it says in the headline.  It makes it clear in the article.

 

It's the same as advertising.  Take, for example, Fox News vs. a PGA Tour tournament.  Fox News has an average age viewership of 66 years old. And a good portion of their viewership has a low amount of disposable income (if any).  That's why you see stuff like Goldline and reverse mortgages advertise on Fox News.  Watch a PGA tournament sometime.  You see advertisers like Audi, Mercedes, Rolex, etc.

 

Everything needs to be focused on the likely consumer, not the average consumer.

 

EDIT: You're right though, in that the headline SHOULD have read, "Survey finds 14% of respondents interested in ...."  That would have been accurate.  As it stands, the headline *is* misleading.


Edited by AaronJ - 6/24/14 at 6:38am
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I wonder how these poll numbers to compare to a then hypothetical Apple Phone? My guess is they are a lot lower.

 

... a then hypothetical Apple Phone that had a keyboard and basically looked like a Blackberry.

 

That's the trouble with these surveys, and I'm sure the point of your comment, we have no idea of the final shape and function of the iWatch. People's interest in it will rise or fall once the product is in hand.

 

[whoops - pipped by TheWhiteFalcon]

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I guess I just mean you can't say that 14% of watch wearers would buy an iwatch for $350 if you only mean "watch wearers that make 130k". It's fine, it's just not the same stat.

$130k is the average income. It doesn't mean (in fact it excludes) that it was the minimum.

Given that watches are now seen primarily as luxury items, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "average" watch wearer makes $130k
post #12 of 47
First we have the problem of the name. This fictional device is being called an iWatch and Apple will never produce a watch. Ever! They may produce a wearable that does many things of which one will be to tell you the time, but that would be like calling your car a watch because it also tells you the time. Why do we keep calling this thing a watch?
post #13 of 47
Studies like this have little value as they are so premature. It is still unknown what a watch from Apple would do, and more important, how it would benefit a person. Apple leads all in integrating and connecting between devices, and there is no reason to doubt they won't do the same with an iWatch. In this case the connection/integration would extend more deeply with the "human device". From what I see, there are two areas an iWatch can offer benefit - connecting to other electronic devices, and to our own bodies. I think it would be the total benefits from an iWatch that would make it successful. Each feature may not be enough reason to have one, but the total of all the benefits could "do it" for most of us. Telling time would be a little more convenient than pulling out a phone, but not a compelling reason to buy. However, it wouldn't take too much imagination to see the potential of real time monitoring of our body's function. I would buy the iWatch for the glucose monitoring function alone, if it made it into the watch - but, imagine most people aren't as curious about the biological aspects of our bodies.

Who knows what will be in the watch? ... time will tell 😉
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_C View Post

Studies like this have little value as they are so premature. It is still unknown what a watch from Apple would do, and more important, how it would benefit a person. Apple leads all in integrating and connecting between devices, and there is no reason to doubt they won't do the same with an iWatch. In this case the connection/integration would extend more deeply with the "human device". From what I see, there are two areas an iWatch can offer benefit - connecting to other electronic devices, and to our own bodies. I think it would be the total benefits from an iWatch that would make it successful. Each feature may not be enough reason to have one, but the total of all the benefits could "do it" for most of us. Telling time would be a little more convenient than pulling out a phone, but not a compelling reason to buy. However, it wouldn't take too much imagination to see the potential of real time monitoring of our body's function. I would buy the iWatch for the glucose monitoring function alone, if it made it into the watch - but, imagine most people aren't as curious about the biological aspects of our bodies.

Who knows what will be in the watch? ... time will tell 😉

According to my memory, nothing of value has come from analyst "studies".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 47
Apple has a way of knowing what consumers way before even they do. All they need to do is show the goods.
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_C View Post

Studies like this have little value as they are so premature. It is still unknown what a watch from Apple would do, and more important, how it would benefit a person. Apple leads all in integrating and connecting between devices, and there is no reason to doubt they won't do the same with an iWatch. In this case the connection/integration would extend more deeply with the "human device". From what I see, there are two areas an iWatch can offer benefit - connecting to other electronic devices, and to our own bodies. I think it would be the total benefits from an iWatch that would make it successful. Each feature may not be enough reason to have one, but the total of all the benefits could "do it" for most of us. Telling time would be a little more convenient than pulling out a phone, but not a compelling reason to buy. However, it wouldn't take too much imagination to see the potential of real time monitoring of our body's function. I would buy the iWatch for the glucose monitoring function alone, if it made it into the watch - but, imagine most people aren't as curious about the biological aspects of our bodies.

Who knows what will be in the watch? ... time will tell 😉

 

You should be banned for that last line! :)

post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

You should be banned for that last line! 1smile.gif
I know ... Couldn't help myself :~}
post #18 of 47

As long as the iWatch looks amazing and does some amazing things that nothing else does, then I don't really care too much about the price. Those who want it and can afford it, will buy one, and those who can't, well, then they wont.

post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

As long as the iWatch looks amazing and does some amazing things that nothing else does, then I don't really care too much about the price. Those who want it and can afford it, will buy one, and those who can't, well, then they wont.

How amazing must it be? Is there a sliding scale to help determine if it is amazing enough?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #20 of 47

According to gwmac, THIS IS ABSOLUTE FACT. THIS IS PROOF. IRREFUTABLE. YOU ARE ALL WRONG. A SURVEY HAS BEEN TAKEN. THEREFORE THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

You should be banned for that last line! 1smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_C View Post

I know ... Couldn't help myself :~}

We've been watching you and it's time for a ban. 1wink.gif

"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 #22 of 47
I've racked my brain trying to think of a reason I would spend $200 (or more) on a device like this, and for the life of me I can't. Unless there's an array of features the speculators are missing, I'm not in on the iWatch game.
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomXXR View Post

I've racked my brain trying to think of a reason I would spend $200 (or more) on a device like this, and for the life of me I can't. Unless there's an array of features the speculators are missing, I'm not in on the iWatch game.

I know this is (would be) extreme marketing hubris, but what if it truly could save your life, or be the difference between getting medical help in time or not? Would that sway your opinion any? Just curious.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


I know this is (would be) extreme marketing hubris, but what if it truly could save your life, or be the difference between getting medical help in time or not? Would that sway your opinion any? Just curious.

 

Well that would certainly give me more pause for thought. I assume you mean something like tracking my vital signs by the minute and if I have a heart attack it could alert an ambulance immediately? I still don't think even then it would sway my particular opinion, but I could definitely see something like that moving others. 

post #25 of 47
These surveys are so idiotic. I bet you surveys for "Are you interested in a tablet" would have been extremely low before the iPad. You can't base anything from gauging interest for a product that people do not have the faintest clue of how to imagine.
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

These surveys are so idiotic. I bet you surveys for "Are you interested in a tablet" would have been extremely low before the iPad. You can't base anything from gauging interest for a product that people do not have the faintest clue of how to imagine.

I'd agree with you before the Pebble, and the Galaxy Gear, but people are now aware what a smart watch is, and have some opinion on it. Before the iPad most people didn't know tablets existed.
"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 #27 of 47
Before cars were ever invented, if you ask the consumers what they wanted they will tell you they want a faster horse.
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.

It's not.

 

But the early adopters of a new consumer technology are rarely "average people." If I recall correctly, the early buyers of the iPad were mostly college-educated professionals in their 40s and 50s making well over $100K per year.

 

Look at the people who buy Tesla automobiles.

 

New technology needs to be appealing and useful to the people with lots of disposable income, the people who can afford to try it out. If the product develops a good reputation, it will develop more interest from those who wouldn't necessarily try out a new item because of budget constraints.

 

Remember, there's expensive stuff that fails. There are two decades of tablet PCs that failed miserably. There's cheap stuff that has brief popularity and then fails miserably (netbooks).

 

That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.

post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post
 

That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.

Apparently, they get money, as their pseudoscientific trash is repeated all over the interwebnets.

post #30 of 47

The survey had 100 respondents. That means the error is 10%.  And a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 20 respondents. Which means that the reported 14% is not appreciably different than zero.  Or 30%.  Furthermore, there is heavy bias in the respondents, as fully 18% of them already owned a fitness band. This suggests to me that the survey was conducted in the lobby of a gym or something.  Such buyers are already highly prejudiced in their purchase plans for smart-wearables.  This survey is likely not representative of the true market.

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenomXXR View Post

I've racked my brain trying to think of a reason I would spend $200 (or more) on a device like this, and for the life of me I can't. Unless there's an array of features the speculators are missing, I'm not in on the iWatch game.

Payments is the only thing I can think of. Health? Fitness? Meh. As a lock for another Apple device, that would be handy, as SolipsismX has suggested.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I'm looking forward to the iWatch and I think it's going to be a hit, but I have to question the methodology here. Surely a "household income of $130,000" is not representative of the average person.
It's not.

But the early adopters of a new consumer technology are rarely "average people." If I recall correctly, the early buyers of the iPad were mostly college-educated professionals in their 40s and 50s making well over $100K per year.

Look at the people who buy Tesla automobiles.

New technology needs to be appealing and useful to the people with lots of disposable income, the people who can afford to try it out. If the product develops a good reputation, it will develop more interest from those who wouldn't necessarily try out a new item because of budget constraints.

Remember, there's expensive stuff that fails. There are two decades of tablet PCs that failed miserably. There's cheap stuff that has brief popularity and then fails miserably (netbooks).

That said, I don't know what Piper Jaffray gets out of interviewing 100 people. The PJ track record is remarkably poor, so I would file this "ANALysis" into the circular file.

That doesn't sound accurate to me at all. The first iPad was $500-hardly bank-breaking, and sold like crazy. Hardly confined to the high-earning.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

The survey had 100 respondents. That means the error is 10%.  And a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 20 respondents. Which means that the reported 14% is not appreciably different than zero.  Or 30%.  Furthermore, there is heavy bias in the respondents, as fully 18% of them already owned a fitness band. This suggests to me that the survey was conducted in the lobby of a gym or something.  Such buyers are already highly prejudiced in their purchase plans for smart-wearables.  This survey is likely not representative of the true market.

Quite-the 18% Fitbit ownership was the giveaway.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Among the 86 percent who said they wouldn't buy, Piper Jaffray polled them on pricing, and found that users would be far more interested at a price below $200. However, 41 percent of respondents said they would not be interested in an "iWatch" regardless of the price.

This is exactly why Apple says they don't rely on market research before they launch a major product because people have no idea what the product will be like. Buyers make a value judgement when they have all of the details. Before they have those details, they are imagining what the product will be and that is biased in some way.

If you look at the recent video of the Moto 360, it looks like a really nicely designed watch and worth more than $200:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/25/moto-360-smartwatch-makes-an-appearance-at-google-i-o/

The software looks a bit unresponsive but design-wise, that's close to what I'd have expected from Apple. It still remains to be seen how useful the functionality provided by the watch will be and the market size for it but people spend over $200 on watches that simply tell the time so I think the Moto 360 will do well enough.

If you look at the Samsung Galaxy Gear 2, it looks like something from the 60s:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/16/gear-2-review/
http://raredigitalwatches.com
http://www.vintagelcd.com

That watch is not a fashionable item, it's a tacky digital watch. When you ask a consumer what they'd be willing to pay for a digital watch, they most likely wouldn't imagine something as refined as the Moto 360.
post #35 of 47

The watch is a joke!

post #36 of 47

1% of people would pay $350 for a product when they have no appreciable knowledge of what it is, what it would look like or what it would do?

 

Nutters, I wouldn't buy or express interest in a phantom product at any price.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



We've been watching you and it's time for a ban. 1wink.gif

 

Ouch.

post #38 of 47
Quote:
Investment firm Piper Jaffray published the results of a new fashion-focused survey on Tuesday

 

(translated)

14% of image conscious egotists with money to burn said they would get a tingle from wearing a device on their wrist that had an Apple logo on it.

post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post
 

 

(translated)

14% of image conscious egotists with money to burn said they would get a tingle from wearing a device on their wrist that had an Apple logo on it.

 

Oh bullshit.

post #40 of 47

There are suckers that everything that Apple produces these customers will buy with the Apple logo on there.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Survey finds 14% of watch-wearers interested in hypothetical $350 Apple 'iWatch'