Most people are not going to want to use a watch phone with speaker. Most people also dislike wearing Bluetooth earpieces.
It would be no different, and more private than holding a phone to your ear.
instead, you just raise your empty hand and cup your ear. Sensors in the wristband would activate directional, noise-canceling speaker and microphone.
Quote:
The only reason I stopped wearing and using it, was because charging it each day was a pain. Battery life is critical for making these things desirable.
I think the way to address that is to have the battery component in the band itself, where it attaches to the watch face.
Well the world is getting rid of watches. An entire generation of people is growing up who never ever worn them. I don't see apple can reach a sizable market with such a product.
What? Have you not seen the under 25 crowd? All they wear are these oversized watches.
It will be a basic cell phone in a watch (or wrist band) form factor.
At an unlocked, unsubsidized price of $150--$250, it will meet the basic phone needs of most emerging, feature phone and prepaid phone markets.
Those who want smartphone features, when they wish, will carry a companion device (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad) that contains no cell radios -- rather interfaces [BT tethered to] the phone on your wrist.
yeah ... the iPhone nano ... and you can wear on the beach. It buys you a mojito at the bar.
Yeah, as opposed to carrying (and possibly losing, have stolen) your iPhone, your wallet or room key...
i can visualize Luxury hotels/spas/cruises issuing wristband phones and iPads to each person on check-in.
Sure some people may say that they don't need a watch because their phone display the time. But can you really say that the experience of fumbling in your pocket for your phone and clicking the backlight button to show the time is a good one. I definitely don't still interesting to see what Apple might come up with. . .
I've not owned a watch for over 20 years and I have never been late for anything : )
I, myself, never understood the need to wear something that just told you what time it was. But then again, my life has never been time driven like that (I don't punch a clock and when I need to be at meetings, my phone or computer reminds me).
It will be a basic cell phone in a watch (or wrist band) form factor.
At an unlocked, unsubsidized price of $150--$250, it will meet the basic phone needs of most emerging, feature phone and prepaid phone markets.
Those who want smartphone features, when they wish, will carry a companion device (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad) that contains no cell radios -- rather interfaces [BT tethered to] the phone on your wrist.
I support this. I can already see on the Apple Event screen : "Apple reinvents the watch, and again the Phone"
Since it would have contact with skin, it could provide biometric monitoring and feedback. It could be a real winner with runners, athletes, people who need to monitor their blood pressure, etc.
This is all quite exciting, I maybe getting sucked into all this recent hype, but it seems like an iWatch maybe imminent, if so I'm looking forward to see what Apple comes up with, and hope Samsung doesn't come along to spoil the party too soon. This together with the - sort of announcement..? That Apple is planning a major TV related event next month, seems to show that Apple might of got its mojo back! If it really ever lost it...
It will not be a basic cell phone in a watch form. Battery technology isn't there yet, no way to have enough talk time on that small of a battery. And who wants to hold their wrist up to their ears to talk on the phone? That seems totally ridiculous.
I recall a history that said the iPhone also had "100" total people assigned to it.
Seems to be a favorite number at Apple for major projects. It no doubt includes support personnel.
Judging from past histories, probably 1/3 to 1/2 are engineers, designers, developers. The rest would be managers, secretaries, assistants, tech writers, ad copywriters, model makers, patent attorneys, testers, and so forth.
Do you recall what was said at trial about the core team size? Thanks!
Designers from both Apple and Samsung testified at the trial. While Samsung designers made allusions to fishbowls and other sources of inspiration, the Apple designers divulged from tangible and interesting tidbits. One of them (I don't recall the name) testified that most Apple products are designed by 20 or so designers sitting around a table. That is the size of Ive's team working on most of their products!
But, as mentioned above, the number of 100 may refer to the entire team, including engineers and software developers. It is unusual, however, to refer to an electrical engineer as a "designer" even if he is designing a circuit board. This title, unless used more specifically, is typically reserved for industrial designers.
A wrist-mounted device with a gyroscopic sensor could be used to capture gestures in 3-d space, blurring the lines between an epileptic fit and operating your iPhone.
Wonder if iWatch is the main reason for the seemingly over-generous settlement with Swiss Railways.
That's an interestingly orthogonal thought. But perhaps too orthogonal? Having said that, I still don't get why they didn't simply switch to a different design of the iPad clock face.
Hopefully people will see island hermits link and finally realise this 'I don't wear a watch so neither does anyone else' mentality is stupid.
The argument is often that a phone can also tell you the time. How long ago did rings, earrings, necklaces or ties cease to be useful. Most of those never where, the others probably not since we lived in caves. Humans like things that are nice. Function is often optional. A Rolex can convey style (apparently!) and wealth. Look at the Casio range of watches, some are excellent, but does anyone think half the functions are really, remotely useful? Stopwatch to 100th second like you could press the button to even the nearest 1/2 second? Altimeter? Yes, some will find it useful but most have it to make them look like the sort of person who would find it useful. It's all fashion statement, show, decoration, personal statement and a small degree of function. Nothing wrong with that either. Plus the time on my wrist is more convenient than the time in my pocket that I must get out and activate.
The watch is no longer any more useful than a 4x4 or a Ferrari in London or than a pair of cuff links since buttons were invented. They remain popular, desirable, intimate, personal objects that people covet.
You're absolutely right. The TV hardware sales are much smaller.
This source says that the number is around 50 M units in a quarter - or 200 M units per hear. At $1000 per TV, that's $200 B. Add in the watches and you have $250 B - so the analyst is expecting Apple to capture 1/3 of the total market - which is just plain absurd. Those are both well-established markets with strongly entrenched market leaders and very little profit potential. To think that Apple will come in with a premium priced product and take a third of the market is crazy.
Yes, they did it with iPads, but that was not an strongly established mature markets. Let's look at mobile phones. At launch, Jobs said Apple wanted a couple percent - and the analysts thought that was unreasonable. Even now - after 7 years of the most successful product launches in history and products that completely revolutionized the industry, Apple has around 10% of the entire mobile market.
So why are TVs and watches so different that anyone would reasonably predict Apple to get 1/3 of the entire market? Nothing. It's pure hype intended to create unrealistic expectations.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I did not see unit per year numbers anywhere in that source article. Perhaps is is in the linked full story pdf. Nonetheless, assuming that the yearly unit television sales are 200M, the average sale price is far lower than $1,000USD. It is likely closer to $650USD. (My Wolfram Alpha query, "average cost of a television" resulted in a median price of $649USD. A low-end 15" Coby goes for $94.98 and a 90" Sharp goes for $9,999.98.). 200M TV units at that median price gets you to about $129.8B in global revenue for televisions (not the entire TV industry including content).
Also, the global watch market was $46.6B, not $50B as you rounded to upthread. That's a big difference. With the TV hardware revenues, that gets us to a total of $176.4B USD.
Lastly, the contention was Apple capturing 20% of the combined market, not 33.3% (1/3) of those markets, collectively. That's another big difference. So, your numbers were rather fuzzy, again. What we have now is 20% of $176.4B, which is $35.28B in revenue that someone "inanely" projected Apple could generate in profit in the foreseeable future.
Considering that Apple reported $155.97B in revenue in FY 2012 (as compared to "only" $32.48B four years earlier in 2008: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/aapl/financials) suggests that even if Apple's revenue growth slowed substantially, it could easily report over $200B in annual revenue in the foreseeable future-perhaps in five years or less.
It is not only not inane, or not possible, but perhaps actually likely that a single breakout product of Apple's could generate 20% of the revenues in the TV and watch markets. Interestingly, the $35.28B figure represents close to 20% of Apple's current revenue. If Apple can scoop up well over $30-40B in revenue from the telephone (iPhone) and PC (iPad) industries, why not from the TV and watch industries?
We know that Apple's iPad accounted for 20% of its 2012 revenues and iPhone accounted for 53% of its revenues: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/24/apple-reports-best-quarter-ever-in-q1-2012-13-06-billion-profit-on-46-33-billion-in-revenue/. Furthermore, from a market share (and absolutely from a revenue and profit share) perspective, Apple has demonstrated a keen ability to do exactly what you say is inane to consider. It can capture greater than 20% of a market it enters very quickly. On a related note, it also can drive a significant proportion of its own revenue with a single breakout product.
It is not pure hype and the expectations are not unrealistic, but actually supported by historical data.
If there is a way to use bone conduction through the wrist then only you will hear the other caller but I don't know if the wrist is a good enough conductor since it's far away from the ear canal. Perhaps it would have to work like the Dick Tracy watch.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
PROBABLY NOT A PHONE
Most people are not going to want to use a watch phone with speaker. Most people also dislike wearing Bluetooth earpieces.
It would be no different, and more private than holding a phone to your ear.
instead, you just raise your empty hand and cup your ear. Sensors in the wristband would activate directional, noise-canceling speaker and microphone.
Quote:
The only reason I stopped wearing and using it, was because charging it each day was a pain. Battery life is critical for making these things desirable.
I think the way to address that is to have the battery component in the band itself, where it attaches to the watch face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It would be no different, and more private than holding a phone to your ear.
instead, you just raise your empty hand and cup your ear. Sensors in the wristband would activate directional, noise-canceling speaker and microphone.
Hold your hand up to your cheek like you usually hold a phone.
Now hold your wrist up to your ear. Ouch.
I don't think a wrist speaker can be that private if you only held your hand up to your cheek.
Reminds me of that finger tip concept phone a couple of years ago. You held your hand up like you were mimicking a phone:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It would be no different, and more private than holding a phone to your ear.
instead, you just raise your empty hand and cup your ear. Sensors in the wristband would activate directional, noise-canceling speaker and microphone.
Maybe.
Hold your hand up to your cheek like you usually hold a phone.
Now hold your wrist up to your ear. Ouch.
I don't think a wrist speaker can be that private if you only held your hand up to your cheek.
No, raise your empty hand to your ear -- just as you would if you had a phone in your hand.
Cup your ear with your empty hand, if you like.
The wristband directional microphone would be in the same approximate position as the [missing] phone microphone.
The directional noise-canceling speaker would point directly to your ear.
Cupping your ear with the empty hand and/or white noise emitted by the wristband would provide greater privacy than a current phone.
Try it! It [your empty hand] fits perfectly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
No, raise your empty hand to your ear -- just as you would if you had a phone in your hand.
Cup your ear with your empty hand, if you like.
Right. Sorry! Missed the part about cupping your ear at first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
Well the world is getting rid of watches. An entire generation of people is growing up who never ever worn them. I don't see apple can reach a sizable market with such a product.
What? Have you not seen the under 25 crowd? All they wear are these oversized watches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by titusm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
No...
It will be a basic cell phone in a watch (or wrist band) form factor.
At an unlocked, unsubsidized price of $150--$250, it will meet the basic phone needs of most emerging, feature phone and prepaid phone markets.
Those who want smartphone features, when they wish, will carry a companion device (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad) that contains no cell radios -- rather interfaces [BT tethered to] the phone on your wrist.
yeah ... the iPhone nano ... and you can wear on the beach. It buys you a mojito at the bar.
Yeah, as opposed to carrying (and possibly losing, have stolen) your iPhone, your wallet or room key...
i can visualize Luxury hotels/spas/cruises issuing wristband phones and iPads to each person on check-in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nudist
Sure some people may say that they don't need a watch because their phone display the time. But can you really say that the experience of fumbling in your pocket for your phone and clicking the backlight button to show the time is a good one. I definitely don't still interesting to see what Apple might come up with. . .
I've not owned a watch for over 20 years and I have never been late for anything : )
I, myself, never understood the need to wear something that just told you what time it was. But then again, my life has never been time driven like that (I don't punch a clock and when I need to be at meetings, my phone or computer reminds me).
I think this is very cool. But it must have NFC. Imagine paying with your watch, or opening your door! That would be cool! I want one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
No...
It will be a basic cell phone in a watch (or wrist band) form factor.
At an unlocked, unsubsidized price of $150--$250, it will meet the basic phone needs of most emerging, feature phone and prepaid phone markets.
Those who want smartphone features, when they wish, will carry a companion device (iPod Touch, iPad Mini, iPad) that contains no cell radios -- rather interfaces [BT tethered to] the phone on your wrist.
I support this. I can already see on the Apple Event screen : "Apple reinvents the watch, and again the Phone"
It will not be a basic cell phone in a watch form. Battery technology isn't there yet, no way to have enough talk time on that small of a battery. And who wants to hold their wrist up to their ears to talk on the phone? That seems totally ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
I recall a history that said the iPhone also had "100" total people assigned to it.
Seems to be a favorite number at Apple for major projects. It no doubt includes support personnel.
Judging from past histories, probably 1/3 to 1/2 are engineers, designers, developers. The rest would be managers, secretaries, assistants, tech writers, ad copywriters, model makers, patent attorneys, testers, and so forth.
Do you recall what was said at trial about the core team size? Thanks!
Designers from both Apple and Samsung testified at the trial. While Samsung designers made allusions to fishbowls and other sources of inspiration, the Apple designers divulged from tangible and interesting tidbits. One of them (I don't recall the name) testified that most Apple products are designed by 20 or so designers sitting around a table. That is the size of Ive's team working on most of their products!
But, as mentioned above, the number of 100 may refer to the entire team, including engineers and software developers. It is unusual, however, to refer to an electrical engineer as a "designer" even if he is designing a circuit board. This title, unless used more specifically, is typically reserved for industrial designers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apersona
A wrist-mounted device with a gyroscopic sensor could be used to capture gestures in 3-d space, blurring the lines between an epileptic fit and operating your iPhone.
Wonder if iWatch is the main reason for the seemingly over-generous settlement with Swiss Railways.
That's an interestingly orthogonal thought. But perhaps too orthogonal? Having said that, I still don't get why they didn't simply switch to a different design of the iPad clock face.
iBand.
The argument is often that a phone can also tell you the time. How long ago did rings, earrings, necklaces or ties cease to be useful. Most of those never where, the others probably not since we lived in caves. Humans like things that are nice. Function is often optional. A Rolex can convey style (apparently!) and wealth. Look at the Casio range of watches, some are excellent, but does anyone think half the functions are really, remotely useful? Stopwatch to 100th second like you could press the button to even the nearest 1/2 second? Altimeter? Yes, some will find it useful but most have it to make them look like the sort of person who would find it useful. It's all fashion statement, show, decoration, personal statement and a small degree of function. Nothing wrong with that either. Plus the time on my wrist is more convenient than the time in my pocket that I must get out and activate.
The watch is no longer any more useful than a 4x4 or a Ferrari in London or than a pair of cuff links since buttons were invented. They remain popular, desirable, intimate, personal objects that people covet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're absolutely right. The TV hardware sales are much smaller.
This source says that the number is around 50 M units in a quarter - or 200 M units per hear. At $1000 per TV, that's $200 B. Add in the watches and you have $250 B - so the analyst is expecting Apple to capture 1/3 of the total market - which is just plain absurd. Those are both well-established markets with strongly entrenched market leaders and very little profit potential. To think that Apple will come in with a premium priced product and take a third of the market is crazy.
Yes, they did it with iPads, but that was not an strongly established mature markets. Let's look at mobile phones. At launch, Jobs said Apple wanted a couple percent - and the analysts thought that was unreasonable. Even now - after 7 years of the most successful product launches in history and products that completely revolutionized the industry, Apple has around 10% of the entire mobile market.
So why are TVs and watches so different that anyone would reasonably predict Apple to get 1/3 of the entire market? Nothing. It's pure hype intended to create unrealistic expectations.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I did not see unit per year numbers anywhere in that source article. Perhaps is is in the linked full story pdf. Nonetheless, assuming that the yearly unit television sales are 200M, the average sale price is far lower than $1,000USD. It is likely closer to $650USD. (My Wolfram Alpha query, "average cost of a television" resulted in a median price of $649USD. A low-end 15" Coby goes for $94.98 and a 90" Sharp goes for $9,999.98.). 200M TV units at that median price gets you to about $129.8B in global revenue for televisions (not the entire TV industry including content).
Also, the global watch market was $46.6B, not $50B as you rounded to upthread. That's a big difference. With the TV hardware revenues, that gets us to a total of $176.4B USD.
Lastly, the contention was Apple capturing 20% of the combined market, not 33.3% (1/3) of those markets, collectively. That's another big difference. So, your numbers were rather fuzzy, again. What we have now is 20% of $176.4B, which is $35.28B in revenue that someone "inanely" projected Apple could generate in profit in the foreseeable future.
Considering that Apple reported $155.97B in revenue in FY 2012 (as compared to "only" $32.48B four years earlier in 2008: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/aapl/financials) suggests that even if Apple's revenue growth slowed substantially, it could easily report over $200B in annual revenue in the foreseeable future-perhaps in five years or less.
It is not only not inane, or not possible, but perhaps actually likely that a single breakout product of Apple's could generate 20% of the revenues in the TV and watch markets. Interestingly, the $35.28B figure represents close to 20% of Apple's current revenue. If Apple can scoop up well over $30-40B in revenue from the telephone (iPhone) and PC (iPad) industries, why not from the TV and watch industries?
We know that Apple's iPad accounted for 20% of its 2012 revenues and iPhone accounted for 53% of its revenues: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/24/apple-reports-best-quarter-ever-in-q1-2012-13-06-billion-profit-on-46-33-billion-in-revenue/. Furthermore, from a market share (and absolutely from a revenue and profit share) perspective, Apple has demonstrated a keen ability to do exactly what you say is inane to consider. It can capture greater than 20% of a market it enters very quickly. On a related note, it also can drive a significant proportion of its own revenue with a single breakout product.
It is not pure hype and the expectations are not unrealistic, but actually supported by historical data.
It won't be OLED that's for sure. Apple doesn't like OLED. OLED is awful.
If there is a way to use bone conduction through the wrist then only you will hear the other caller but I don't know if the wrist is a good enough conductor since it's far away from the ear canal. Perhaps it would have to work like the Dick Tracy watch.