Analysts start releasing projections of iWatch units predicted to sell from 10M units in first year! Only Apple analysts can conjure this kind of speculation.
I mean Apple clearly has it's product timeline in place but with nothing more than patent filings and lousy sales data of existing market watches this is nothing more than hot air....
It is all BS, I think it is another attempt by some idiots to manipulate apple stock. they will use this and means to drive up or down the stock value based on what they think will make them the most money. It was like the whole TV thing apple was supposedly making.
TheOtherGeoff brings up a good point. If it's an insurance/FSA/HSA expense- that would be brilliant. Talk about moving product...
I like talking about what the product could be- what they could do with an iwatch, the next Apple TV, the next iPhone, etc. Predictions of volume on an unannounced speculation is beyond ridiculous.
Oh, I don't know about this. A lot of young adults I know have abandoned watches and just use their phone. Apple is going to have to sell them on watches before it sells them iWatches. They may take a pass, particularly if iWatches are regarded as nerdy.
The watch-wearing among us have other issues. As a member of an older generation, I'd add that the last thing I want to fuss with it another gadget to deal with each day. And yes, an iWatch is replacing that watch I do wear. But that watch goes years between batteries. This iWatch is, at best, likely to go a few months or, at worst, become yet another gadget to be recharged.
Mobile technology is getting impacted by a fatigue factor. Too many gadgets waste time and energy rather than save it. If the iWatch only saves us the bother of pulling a phone out of our pockets, it's going to have the popularity of always worn Bluetooth headsets.
Apple should thank Samsung for the Gear and showing everyone how NOT to do a smartwatch.
Oh, Samsung knows that their abysmal effort won't get them any sales; it wasn't meant to because it's a legal strategy, not a marketing one.
If/when Apple releases a smart watch then Samsung will release a copy. If/when Apple sues then Samsung will point to their first-gen piece of crap and say, 'But we were here first!'
It's a placeholder, nothing more. No one at Samsung believes it's any good, and they don't care. The real one comes after the Apple model.
Oh it's going to happen but these predictions are meaningless.
In order to accurately gauge interst you would need to know.
1 what it actually looks like
2 what it actually does
3 what it actually costs
It's unbelievable. How can you project sales numbers of a product you have no idea what is. I think there is a huge potential in a wearable device that can measure all sorts of body functions. Not only might it be of great benefit for the wearer but also might reduce health care costs by huge sums of money. The question is - is the technology there yet? There is no way Apple will bring out a niche product which an iWatch as we (imagine) we understand it today is. I think we may be a couple of years away.
Could this be ANOTHER unsupported prediction based upon erroneous research? Some analysts%u2019 inputs need to be questioned before taking them seriously!!!! http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/25/gene-munsters-iphone-launch-estimates-off-by-5m-units-for-the-second-year-in-a-row Gene, please admit your mistakes, apologize, learn from your errors to improve the accuracy of your reporting or simply go away. You are adding to the noise that diminishes the stock value of a quality company. I shall recall the link to this article and continue to publish this comment when I feel it is appropriate. 9/25/2013
Really, this is all so lame and pointless. The "poll" (for starters) did not suggest "that as many as 4 percent of iPhone owners would be early adopters". Munster, an analyst (which I hope by itself is enough of a pejorative), "suggested" that number based on his own fantasies.
And my own fantasies are that Apple is really not so stupid as to put out something as nerdy and gimmicky as this "iWatch" thing. Maybe if Samsung or some other bottom feeder would license the Rolex brand name they could sell enough to the extremely gullible. But such an item would either be too small to be actually useful -- whether tethered to a larger iOS device or not -- or so big and clunky as to question why it is necessary at all, when a velcro wrist strap taped to your iPhone could do the job just as well.
It's unbelievable. How can you project sales numbers of a product you have no idea what is. I think there is a huge potential in a wearable device that can measure all sorts of body functions. Not only might it be of great benefit for the wearer but also might reduce health care costs by huge sums of money.
I don't think anything is going to reduce healthcare costs short of a cure for every cancer. What's the incentive? A watch certainly wouldn't reduce costs by "a huge amount." IMO.
I could be bothered to give a damn about some of this if the guy doing the analyzing/speculating wasn't so full-tilt clueless, off his rocker and outright wrong about everything he analyzes and speculates about.
I honestly don't know how - or why - some of these people have jobs. I admit, I'm a bit jealous...it must be great to rake in such a healthy income from being wrong way more than being right. In what other field/industry is that the norm?
"My supply checks and analysis tell me that the sky is going to be green tomorrow..." = fired, instantly.
"My supply checks - on nonexistent parts for unconfirmed tech, by people who are equally clueless in the matter - lead me to believe Apple is looking to make a strong entry into the waffle iron sector, within the next 2-9 years. Prices will start at $129 and possibly top out at $799 (because that's the number that just popped into my head as I was looking out the window). However, if they don't release an iron for $29, off contract, to developing, underrepresented markets, it will spell certain doom, and I predict the reign of Apple is going to come crashing to an end within 2-5 decades." - Praised, "respected" (and listened to?!?) analyst jackoff.
This guy couldn't find it with two hands and a flashlight. I don't know why his thoughts on anything are reported, let alone viewed as any sort of solid analysis or a "glimpse of the future".
I'm pretty sure that's about all that needs to be said on the matter.
I don't think anything is going to reduce healthcare costs short of a cure for every cancer. What's the incentive? A watch certainly wouldn't reduce costs by "a huge amount." IMO.
A future device will be able to take a large number of readings and automatically, or semi automatically, communicate with a GP who can make changes or suggest changes to medication, or make diagnosis', without the patient needing to be seen in person. Early detection of problems will also save money. I guess saving huge amounts is overly optimistic, but this kind of technology may help slow increasing costs of healthcare for an ageing population significantly.
I saw those Gear commercials as well. It was neat until they showed the Gear itself. The unaligned screw heads still piss me off. That and Sammy didn't give me a reason to get one.
An iwatch will be just that. An easy to use, multifunction watch. Better be water proof since I swim and shower with the watch on.
But the idea that it will be driven by biometric measurements is ridiculous. Unless you have sensors implanted in your body to which a iDevice is attached, there is nothing of any import that can be measured. Think of all the machinery attached to hospital patients, and frequent blood test monitoring, stress testing, etc. Unless more and better non-invasive tests become available, or people willing to have monitoring equipment imbedded, there is no chance of an iwatch being useful.
I think Apple could have started rumors about the iwatch designs just to get other companies to waste their money on wasteful spending.
I don't think anything is going to reduce healthcare costs short of a cure for every cancer. What's the incentive? A watch certainly wouldn't reduce costs by "a huge amount." IMO.
Pie in the sky projections can include things like alerting the user to issues such as blood pressure or blood sugar levels which can lead to immediate intervention on a small scale and avoid a later much more expensive invasive hospitalization. Or could work like the oil life indicator in your car as a gauge to schedule trips to the doctor at intervals that are relative to your level of health.
On the flip side - anything that saves time in getting accurate info communicated between patients and health care professionals may not reduce the cost of treatment but can reduce the length of time spent to implement that treatment - more patients treated with the same number of employees or the same amount of infrastructure may not reduce the cost of the actual treatments applied but the carrying cost of providing those treatments.
Comments
I mean Apple clearly has it's product timeline in place but with nothing more than patent filings and lousy sales data of existing market watches this is nothing more than hot air....
May or may not have a screen
May or may not be worn on the wrist
May or may not be released
It is all BS, I think it is another attempt by some idiots to manipulate apple stock. they will use this and means to drive up or down the stock value based on what they think will make them the most money. It was like the whole TV thing apple was supposedly making.
I like talking about what the product could be- what they could do with an iwatch, the next Apple TV, the next iPhone, etc. Predictions of volume on an unannounced speculation is beyond ridiculous.
The watch-wearing among us have other issues. As a member of an older generation, I'd add that the last thing I want to fuss with it another gadget to deal with each day. And yes, an iWatch is replacing that watch I do wear. But that watch goes years between batteries. This iWatch is, at best, likely to go a few months or, at worst, become yet another gadget to be recharged.
Mobile technology is getting impacted by a fatigue factor. Too many gadgets waste time and energy rather than save it. If the iWatch only saves us the bother of pulling a phone out of our pockets, it's going to have the popularity of always worn Bluetooth headsets.
Gene is rapidly losing any credibility. He has not been adding any real value in his analysis. It is pure speculative crap
Apple should thank Samsung for the Gear and showing everyone how NOT to do a smartwatch.
Oh, Samsung knows that their abysmal effort won't get them any sales; it wasn't meant to because it's a legal strategy, not a marketing one.
If/when Apple releases a smart watch then Samsung will release a copy. If/when Apple sues then Samsung will point to their first-gen piece of crap and say, 'But we were here first!'
It's a placeholder, nothing more. No one at Samsung believes it's any good, and they don't care. The real one comes after the Apple model.
Oh it's going to happen but these predictions are meaningless.
In order to accurately gauge interst you would need to know.
1 what it actually looks like
2 what it actually does
3 what it actually costs
It's unbelievable. How can you project sales numbers of a product you have no idea what is. I think there is a huge potential in a wearable device that can measure all sorts of body functions. Not only might it be of great benefit for the wearer but also might reduce health care costs by huge sums of money. The question is - is the technology there yet? There is no way Apple will bring out a niche product which an iWatch as we (imagine) we understand it today is. I think we may be a couple of years away.
Some analysts%u2019 inputs need to be questioned before taking them seriously!!!!
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/25/gene-munsters-iphone-launch-estimates-off-by-5m-units-for-the-second-year-in-a-row
Gene, please admit your mistakes, apologize, learn from your errors to improve the accuracy of your reporting or simply go away. You are adding to the noise that diminishes the stock value of a quality company. I shall recall the link to this article and continue to publish this comment when I feel it is appropriate. 9/25/2013
Really, this is all so lame and pointless. The "poll" (for starters) did not suggest "that as many as 4 percent of iPhone owners would be early adopters". Munster, an analyst (which I hope by itself is enough of a pejorative), "suggested" that number based on his own fantasies.
And my own fantasies are that Apple is really not so stupid as to put out something as nerdy and gimmicky as this "iWatch" thing. Maybe if Samsung or some other bottom feeder would license the Rolex brand name they could sell enough to the extremely gullible. But such an item would either be too small to be actually useful -- whether tethered to a larger iOS device or not -- or so big and clunky as to question why it is necessary at all, when a velcro wrist strap taped to your iPhone could do the job just as well.
with a recent hire to support that theory:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Apple-Hires-CableLabs-Exec-for-Something-Big-126081
I don't think anything is going to reduce healthcare costs short of a cure for every cancer. What's the incentive? A watch certainly wouldn't reduce costs by "a huge amount." IMO.
Article about the new Galaxy Gear Tv ads, with youtube video embedded:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/06/samsungs-galaxy-gear-ads-show-a-dated-device-not-a-futuristic-one/
Even if it is true, I will never buy one, and I love my Apple products. I really think it is a way for Apple to drive Samsung crazy.
I could be bothered to give a damn about some of this if the guy doing the analyzing/speculating wasn't so full-tilt clueless, off his rocker and outright wrong about everything he analyzes and speculates about.
I honestly don't know how - or why - some of these people have jobs. I admit, I'm a bit jealous...it must be great to rake in such a healthy income from being wrong way more than being right. In what other field/industry is that the norm?
"My supply checks and analysis tell me that the sky is going to be green tomorrow..." = fired, instantly.
"My supply checks - on nonexistent parts for unconfirmed tech, by people who are equally clueless in the matter - lead me to believe Apple is looking to make a strong entry into the waffle iron sector, within the next 2-9 years. Prices will start at $129 and possibly top out at $799 (because that's the number that just popped into my head as I was looking out the window). However, if they don't release an iron for $29, off contract, to developing, underrepresented markets, it will spell certain doom, and I predict the reign of Apple is going to come crashing to an end within 2-5 decades." - Praised, "respected" (and listened to?!?) analyst jackoff.
This guy couldn't find it with two hands and a flashlight. I don't know why his thoughts on anything are reported, let alone viewed as any sort of solid analysis or a "glimpse of the future".
I'm pretty sure that's about all that needs to be said on the matter.
I don't think anything is going to reduce healthcare costs short of a cure for every cancer. What's the incentive? A watch certainly wouldn't reduce costs by "a huge amount." IMO.
A future device will be able to take a large number of readings and automatically, or semi automatically, communicate with a GP who can make changes or suggest changes to medication, or make diagnosis', without the patient needing to be seen in person. Early detection of problems will also save money. I guess saving huge amounts is overly optimistic, but this kind of technology may help slow increasing costs of healthcare for an ageing population significantly.
I saw those Gear commercials as well. It was neat until they showed the Gear itself. The unaligned screw heads still piss me off. That and Sammy didn't give me a reason to get one.
But the idea that it will be driven by biometric measurements is ridiculous. Unless you have sensors implanted in your body to which a iDevice is attached, there is nothing of any import that can be measured. Think of all the machinery attached to hospital patients, and frequent blood test monitoring, stress testing, etc. Unless more and better non-invasive tests become available, or people willing to have monitoring equipment imbedded, there is no chance of an iwatch being useful.
I think Apple could have started rumors about the iwatch designs just to get other companies to waste their money on wasteful spending.
I don't think anything is going to reduce healthcare costs short of a cure for every cancer. What's the incentive? A watch certainly wouldn't reduce costs by "a huge amount." IMO.
Pie in the sky projections can include things like alerting the user to issues such as blood pressure or blood sugar levels which can lead to immediate intervention on a small scale and avoid a later much more expensive invasive hospitalization. Or could work like the oil life indicator in your car as a gauge to schedule trips to the doctor at intervals that are relative to your level of health.
On the flip side - anything that saves time in getting accurate info communicated between patients and health care professionals may not reduce the cost of treatment but can reduce the length of time spent to implement that treatment - more patients treated with the same number of employees or the same amount of infrastructure may not reduce the cost of the actual treatments applied but the carrying cost of providing those treatments.