Cantor: Wearables now a 'legitimate' product category, but only an Apple 'iWatch' would drive sales

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ronstark View Post



    As I see it it's not the product but functions it delivers. Keep in mind the Star Trek model. No one wore jewelry of any kind! And they certainly didn't need an iPhone! Perhaps something to think about.

     

    You are forgetting the Star Fleet insignia that doubled as a two-way communicator and tracker.

     

    Had Roddenberry and the later writers been a bit more forward looking, they would see that having biometric data on people would be extremely invaluable, and having situations where someone could LOSE contact with a ship when it's their only life support for light years -- not good.

     

    There's a lot of problems a wearable device can solve -- just most of them we are seeing have not found those problems nor solutions which is why they won't sell.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 36

    The reason Apple isn't about to make an "iWatch" is because it fails their biggest test: "does it deserve to exist?" Nope.

     

    Now, if it was possible for an iWatch to act as a simplified iPhone with Facetime, then maybe Apple would consider it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 36
    mobius wrote: »
    That's funny - because there are these things called wristwatches, which last time I looked were a 'legitimate' product category, and date as far back as the 16th century. I used to have one at school in the 1980's and it even had a calculator on it!


    Stupid analyst.
    Yep, I was a navigator in the U.S. Navy in the late 70's early 80's and bought a Casio calculator watch ($80) and it was one the handiest things I ever owned. At the time.

    The most accurate form of Navigation (pre-GPS) was, Piloting. That's where you take sights of three lighthouses while steaming along the coast and plot them on your chart to get your position.

    Celestial navigation (Sextant) is used when you're out of sight of land and too far for radar. But when out at sea there was really no way to see if you were within 1 mile of your fix or 6 miles.

    When we were along the coast, I used to shoot stars and two hours of math later, I would plot my Celestial fix on the chart and compare to the more accurate Piloting position fix. I could get it under a mile, which is pretty cool. 

    The week I left the Navy (Feb 7th, 1981), we got our first GPS unit (SatNav) for the Chart House. It was the size of a huge microwave oven. It was so accurate, you could plot your position as you swung around your anchor chain. 

    Now GPS is in the iPhone or in a watch.

    Just amazing and no need to shoot the stars anymore! :)


    Brought back some memories, Mobius. Thx. :)

    Best.

    Now, if you're in range of 3 iBeacons, you can trilaterate your location within several feet... on your iPhone!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    Now, if you're in range of 3 iBeacons, you can trilaterate your location within several feet... on your iPhone!

    :) Yeah, if you want to "navigate" around Macy's! :)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

     

     

    You are forgetting the Star Fleet insignia that doubled as a two-way communicator and tracker.

     

    Had Roddenberry and the later writers been a bit more forward looking, they would see that having biometric data on people would be extremely invaluable, and having situations where someone could LOSE contact with a ship when it's their only life support for light years -- not good.

     

    There's a lot of problems a wearable device can solve -- just most of them we are seeing have not found those problems nor solutions which is why they won't sell.


    Yep, "Beam me up, Luke!" :)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 36
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member

    Perhaps the first 'legit' product category created by speculation, a rumour, and a whole lotta fear.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post

     

    Perhaps the first 'legit' product category created by speculation, a rumour, and a whole lotta fear.


    Perhaps, paxman. :) It's a given that if Apple ends up doing a watch, they will do the basics, notifications, etc. But, if Apple brings it's special expertise to health/exercise, it could be a game changer.

     

    I think Apple could blow the fitbits, Nike watches, Garmins out of the water.

     

    As a runner, on my iPhone, I have to open the Nike+GPS app and set, open flashlight app and set to "flashing" (early morning/night), open HRM app (put on chest strap). Open podcast app or setup a music playlist.

     

    Although the apps were developed with iOS in mind, they have varying degrees of interface quality. None compare to Apple's own apps as far as elegance. In fact, none of them are what I would call elegant. And, I find it very fragmented.

     

    Now imagine, at the start of the run saying, "Siri let's go for a run!" and she's "OK, would you like me to play a podcast or listen to your 'Run' playlist? Would you like to shuffle your playlist? It's dark, so I've set your iPhone flash to 'strobe,' OK? Would you like me to give you updates (voice) during the run?" And after the first run's set of questions, the next run she says, "Same as last time?" Yep Siri let's go! :)

     

    I look down at my Apple iWatch and can see my heart rate, distance and pace. And I get updates from Siri via my earbuds or my BT sports headset.

     

    Or, "Hey Siri, lets go for a hike, or swim, or bike ride, etc., etc."

     

    Best.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 36
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post



    The problem with the iWatch is named Samsung. Apple know how much technology Samsung is able to pour in his future Galaxy Gear watch, and Apple know that Apple can't beat Samsung to this game. So they are waiting for marketing ideas like they had for the iPhone: 64 bit and fingerprint. Useless for most users but two very strong marketing tools. That's what iWatch need and wait for becoming alive.

    Samsung?

     

    Were that true the first Gear wouldn't have been such landfill fodder.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 36
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,729member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

     

    Perhaps, paxman. :) It's a given that if Apple ends up doing a watch, they will do the basics, notifications, etc. But, if Apple brings it's special expertise to health/exercise, it could be a game changer.

     

    I think Apple could blow the fitbits, Nike watches, Garmins out of the water.

     

    As a runner, on my iPhone, I have to open the Nike+GPS app and set, open flashlight app and set to "flashing" (early morning/night), open HRM app (put on chest strap). Open podcast app or setup a music playlist.

     

    Although the apps were developed with iOS in mind, they have varying degrees of interface quality. None compare to Apple's own apps as far as elegance. In fact, none of them are what I would call elegant. And, I find it very fragmented.

     

    Now imagine, at the start of the run saying, "Siri let's go for a run!" and she's "OK, would you like me to play a podcast or listen to your 'Run' playlist? Would you like to shuffle your playlist? It's dark, so I've set your iPhone flash to 'strobe,' OK? Would you like me to give you updates (voice) during the run?" And after the first run's set of questions, the next run she says, "Same as last time?" Yep Siri let's go! :)

     

    I look down at my Apple iWatch and can see my heart rate, distance and pace. And I get updates from Siri via my earbuds or my BT sports headset.

     

    Or, "Hey Siri, lets go for a hike, or swim, or bike ride, etc., etc."

     

    Best.


    Yes, I certainly can see there is room for improvement but the runners of this world cannot make up a successful device category - there just aren't enough of you. Once body sensors can measure other vitals such as blood sugars I think perhaps an iWatch will come closer to becoming a reality. If such a device can effectively track vital body statistics live, every adult over 50 - 60 will want one. That's when Apple will enter the market. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post

     

    Yes, I certainly can see there is room for improvement but the runners of this world cannot make up a successful device category - there just aren't enough of you. Once body sensors can measure other vitals such as blood sugars I think perhaps an iWatch will come closer to becoming a reality. If such a device can effectively track vital body statistics live, every adult over 50 - 60 will want one. That's when Apple will enter the market. 


    Agreed. But, there is even a bigger market of "wannabe runners!" :)

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 36
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post



    So they are waiting for marketing ideas like they had for the iPhone: 64 bit and fingerprint. Useless for most users but two very strong marketing tools.

    As if the Pop-up Play, eye-scroll, or hover select is useful?  Please.  Give me 64 bit and fingerprint any day.  Samsung is the king of gimmicks.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 36
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gprovida View Post



    In other words without Apple to copy the market is weak and poor sort of like ultra books, tablets, and smart phones were. But Apple has an innovation problem or rather industry has an innovation problem without Apple to copy.

     

    You know the drill. If Apple releases an iWatch, everybody will copy it and claim that it the natural evolution of a watch.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 36
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    You know the drill. If Apple releases an iWatch, everybody will copy it and claim that it the natural evolution of a watch.

    Are you negligent to the fact that it's happened to just about every product? There's always a company that leads the charge of the evolution of a product. I'm pretty sure that you don't have a Philips flat panel TV, so were you upset when Sony, Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc, etc copied Philips new design for TVs? I could make a mock up of what TVs looked like before and after Philips, and for a plethora of products.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 36
    This category is futile until is serves real biometric purposes, which would be hard to imagine more than heart rate and steps taken / avg calories burned.

    Everyone I know who is really into phones and keeps up with advances in mobile tech says there is no way they would buy an iWatch, and I agree.

    Do people need one more thing to distract them? I can't wait for a near future when everyone is wearing google glass, an iWatch on their wrist, and a phone in their pocket while crashing their cars into everything around them.

    Maybe the new iWatches will have an LTE version so we can pay for an ISP four separate times a month.

    Don't act like Apple is flawless, Ping, Nano Watch, iRadio is basically useless, Apple TV leaves a lot to be desired. I love my Apple products, and trust their design, but mobile computing needs more scrutiny for how it is shaping the experience of our world in public space, and I think it has almost as many drawbacks as it does benefits. Not to mention the environmental impact of infinite growth.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 36
    irelandireland Posts: 17,802member
    jnati wrote: »
    This category is futile until is serves real biometric purposes...

    I actually think the killer functionality for iWatch should be fitness, and specifically wireless music playback combined with GPS, heart rate, motion and pedometer. I.E. What iWatch should be really is an iPod killer with amazing battery life, sleek, minimal design, a low-energy connection to a set of mag-charged new Apple headphones that are as cool as the existing EarPods. And the bonus feature would be iPhone connectivity and notifications. So you could go for a jog with just your iWatch and listen to your music while it tracks all of your information and arrive home to important notifications popping up on your iWatch as it syncs with your iPhone to gather all your jogging data.

    That would be a product that deserves to exist.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 36
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    There's a lot more you can do with a computer in your pocket than one on your lap. You don't have to find a place to sit down to use it, for a start. But how much more can you do with a computer on your wrist vs. in your pocket? Not much. Exercise maybe, or in general any activity where you need both hands free.

     

    Would the iWatch be specialised to one of these activities or try to be general purpose? And if the whole point is to have both hands free, the primary interface can't really be a touch screen. Siri maybe?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.