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

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited July 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 58
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I wonder how these poll numbers to compare to a then hypothetical Apple Phone? My guess is they are a lot lower.
  • Reply 2 of 58

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

  • Reply 3 of 58
    jakebjakeb Posts: 557member
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 58
    undefined
  • Reply 5 of 58
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    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.

  • Reply 6 of 58
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 58
    jakebjakeb Posts: 557member
    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.
  • Reply 8 of 58
    Meh not that interested in it.
  • Reply 9 of 58
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    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.

  • Reply 10 of 58
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    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]

  • Reply 11 of 58
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    jakeb wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 12 of 58
    kent909kent909 Posts: 708member
    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?
  • Reply 13 of 58
    michael_cmichael_c Posts: 164member
    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 ????
  • Reply 14 of 58
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,837member
    michael_c wrote: »
    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".
  • Reply 15 of 58
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    Apple has a way of knowing what consumers way before even they do. All they need to do is show the goods.
  • Reply 16 of 58
    inklinginkling Posts: 731member
    undefined
  • Reply 17 of 58
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    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! :)

  • Reply 18 of 58
    michael_cmichael_c Posts: 164member
    aaronj wrote: »
    You should be banned for that last line! :)
    I know ... Couldn't help myself :~}
  • Reply 19 of 58
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,428member

    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.

  • Reply 20 of 58
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,837member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.