So far every mainstream product Apple has released has been something that reaches out beyond their current ecosystem. You didn't need a Mac to use itunes which was a large profit generator. You didn't need a Mac or any other Apple product to use an iPod (large profit generator). You didn't need a Mac to use an iPhone, and the same is true with the iPad.
While I think they would add a couple of nice features built in if you did use their ecosystem, I don't believe it will be a major selling point for their next mainstream product. That seems to be the lesson Steve brought back to Apple. It will probably function perfectly well without owning a separate Apple device that you may not own.
Except Steve initially didn't want to port iTunes to Windows. The only reason Apple did it is because at the time you needed a computer to get your media on an iPod and most people owned Windows PCs. It was all about selling more iPods. You'll noticed Apple hasn't ported iTunes to Android. With wearable devices and stand alone functionality I think it will all come down to battery life. I can't see an Apple wearable device being compatible with other platforms.
Can someone who has a good grasp on these rumors explain what is the big deal with the iWatch? I could see maybe if it was a stand alone phone with hotspot ability for other devices but then it would be huge because of the battery. Likely not much room for music or apps with how much room for storage.
I'm well aware that Apple hasn't announced anything but as far as Apple rumors go I can't see any reason to get excited about much yet.
That's the big question. Other company's digital watches haven't been compelling, but in the past Apple has been able to enter such markets and reinvent them. People are waiting to see if they can still do it without Steve Jobs.
I think that Jony Ive is still there, so even if the watch is conceptually the same as the others (which would be a disappointment), at least it will still be the most beautiful. And maybe that is the future of Apple in general without Steve Jobs: the maker of the most beautiful, but not fundamentally different, gadgets to everyone else.
When a rumored product gets delay rumors that means either
1. It is legit as are the delays 2. The analysts etc are hearing rumors that there is proof they were full of crap about some or all details and they are covering their butts.
The latter is almost always the truth. Case in point, Munster and his TV
I won't go into the credibility of Kuo's predictions, but I will say it's quite interesting to read the comments. As always you have three camps:
1) The Optimists: Those who are excited about the idea of an iWatch and don't care if it's any different from Samsung's offering as long as it's Apple-Sexy.
2) The Pessimists: Those who are just waiting to see post-Jobs Apple fail, with claims that Apple has lost it's innovation. These are also the one's who think watches are dead and Apple (as well as the rest of the industry) is wasting their time by even thinking about watches.
3) The Fence-Riders: These are the ones who are fine either way and just waiting to see what Apple announces before they form an official opinion.
As for me, I'm a bit of a hybrid of all 3. I'm a long time (20+ years) Apple user and iOS developer ( almost 4 years ). I've been keeping a close eye on the iWatch rumor-mill as well as observing the changes in the SDK over the last few WWDC events, and have to honestly say that Apple has been setting up for the release of the iWatch for some time now.
In the article (and comments) there's some doubt as to whether Apple can meet the challenges of making software for a smaller screen. I think that the features unveiled in iOS 8 point to a very simple solution, that's already available: Extensions. Specifically what's called "Today Widget/Extension". This could be what Apple has in mind for smaller screens. The iWatch would become and extension of the Notification Center on the iPhone. So developers would be able to bundle and Extension with their app designed specifically for the iWatch. Interactions would be simple (taps and swipes) like what's available in Notification Center.
There was a very interesting article posted yesterday (http://bit.ly/cooks-new-apple) which seems to shed some light on Tim Cooks vision of Apple's future: a more inclusive Apple. This is consistent with my theory of why apple pulled the iPod Nano, which was quickly converted to watches by the community and third-party accessory makers. It wasn't integrated into the ecosystem. It was closed to developers and the capabilities were very limited to playing music, checking the time and some basic Nike+ integration. This wasn't the future of wearables, but a stop-gap. Instead of just throwing some antennas in the Nano, Apple went back to the drawing board to rethink what the future of wearables would be and took it one step further. Now with HealthKit and HomeKit the iWatch is shaping up to be a real "must-have". Away to monitor your health and home with the same simplicity to add functionality through third party applications.
While Samsung dropped their wearable first, it's little more than the iPod Nano with the added antennas (exactly what apple avoided doing). Apple will change the game again with the iWatch and just like with iPhone, everyone will be playing catchup.
Please provide references on 9to5Mac's "almost perfect" track record. If that is the truly the case, I don't know why anyone interested in Apple should be reading anything but them.
MacRumors has an excellent record of accuracy. Ming? 50/50. 9-5? Gurman is supposedly near-perfect when his articles are based on primary sources.
"... no issue whatsoever with 9to5 Mac's reporting of rumors derived from its own original sources. They obviously work hard to get this information, and it almost always turns out to be either wholly or substantially accurate. The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in.
If 9to5 Mac stuck to reporting only its own, originally-sourced rumors-and if they could rein in the more *ahem* enthusiastic members of their staff-they could easily be the undisputed go-to bastion of all Apple rumors."
So not that great when he posts 2nd source articles relying on analysts and the like or with some articles written by other staff members.
Besides interdimensional space travel or wormhole transportation or direct brain VR interfaces or the cure for death...
Everything else is more or less a re-iteration of past ideas and technology at this point. Its not like the laws of the universe will bend to anything and everything we wish for at the moment of our choosing.
There is very little that hasn't been imagined in science fiction at this point... Anyone who reads knows that a true "new" idea is not that easy to come by.
On a side note, i am seriously doubting mobile payments coming to iwatch if it is priced high as a premium device.
The iphone6 could have a scratchproof screen but i am still stuck with a case if the body is not scratchproof or dent proof (from falls). Also, i cant get rid of my wallet phone case unless they make drivers license and credit cards obsolete. Both of these are technically doable. perhaps drivers license are not feasable to implement due to disparate state government systems.
MP3 players are just portable music players. These existed as transistor radios even before Apple was a company.
Cell phones and smartphones existed well before Apple released the iPhone. Same for the tablet. The rumoured iWatch is not any more "a very old tech" than any of those items that are doing something different with a general form factor.
Wearables are coming and will be a huge market. I doubt Apple will ignore it.
I think the difference was being in control of one's content... That's really what the 'i' revolution was all about... The Personal computer was about having 'your own' computer. MP3's were the first vestiges of portable 'mobile' (I can 'program' a playlist) content.
Just like dumb phones existed before smartphones, watches existed before wearables. And watches had one duty... to keep one in sync with the world. When that was solve, then it became a fashion piece, from nerdy (chronometers) to gaudy (Versace). One would argue that wearables will do that and more, just like smartphones do phones and more.
Wearables are the huge market... everyone over the age of 5 needs to be in sync with their world. and just like smartphones, the reasons why can only be guessed at this time in their gestation.
Besides interdimensional space travel or wormhole transportation or direct brain VR interfaces or the cure for death...
Everything else is more or less a re-iteration of past ideas and technology at this point. Its not like the laws of the universe will bend to anything and everything we wish for at the moment of our choosing.
There is very little that hasn't been imagined in science fiction at this point... Anyone who reads knows that a true "new" idea is not that easy to come by.
On a side note, i am seriously doubting mobile payments coming to iwatch if it is priced high as a premium device.
The iphone6 could have a scratchproof screen but i am still stuck with a case if the body is not scratchproof or dent proof (from falls). Also, i cant get rid of my wallet phone case unless they make drivers license and credit cards obsolete. Both of these are technically doable. perhaps drivers license are not feasable to implement due to disparate state government systems.
on your latter point, the more mobile a item is, the more durable it has to be. Watches in the early 1900's were massed produced for the first time (industrial revolution, vs guild craft), and you protected them ('kept them close to your vest'). You paid handsomely for a Rolex Clamshell that was water resistant to 3 Atmospheres. It wasn't until Timex made durability a marketing phrase ("it takes a licking, and keeps on ticking") did durability become commoditized. Even more so when Casio et al came out with digital watches.
Credit cards will be obsolete in 10 years, at least 'value' cards will be. Drivers' Licenses, could be less... all it takes is a Law and Order Techie in charge of DHS or a state like CA 'going paperless', and the national ID database will just show up. There is no reason why passports and state issued IDs can't be tokenized. In some respects, that's a good thing... obviously, in others, it becomes a real bad thing, but the technology is not only doable... the economics is compelling.... it's really just public opinion that will hold back a 'national ID' system
The term "delay" vs "on schedule" is a relative term. Relative to what the original schedule was, and outside Apple nobody knows Apple's schedule. From what I can tell, either AppleInsider or Kuo is spinning this as a "delay" in the context of the "industry consensus" about a September manufacture date. But for all we know, that was an erroneous guess to begin with. A rumor repeated can easily turn into "consensus" on the web.
A year and a half ago tCook was talking like iWatch could have a mid year debut. They're walking the razor' sedge on this. I don't fault them a bit. Make it great. I'd be disappointed, but I'd wait another year or two if I had to to get the device that's being rumored. Another few weeks is nothing.
Cook didn't allude to a timeframe. He alluded to Apple doing something but only release it when ready.
Credit cards will be obsolete in 10 years, at least 'value' cards will be. Drivers' Licenses, could be less... all it takes is a Law and Order Techie in charge of DHS or a state like CA 'going paperless', and the national ID database will just show up. There is no reason why passports and state issued IDs can't be tokenized. In some respects, that's a good thing... obviously, in others, it becomes a real bad thing, but the technology is not only doable... the economics is compelling.... it's really just public opinion that will hold back a 'national ID' system
Nope. Not everyone will have a smart phone in 10 years. Whether by cost or by choice.
My guess would be Apple would want to debut the device and its capabilities a bit before it is widely available, particularly if it needs to deploy some SDK resources to developers. Price, capability, and aesthetic are going to be everything.
iWatch may be one product but I expect numerous models, styles, and price points. Their "Timex" will be cheap and affordable but their "Rolex" model will produce serious pangs of envy. People who never considered buying a smart watch will suddenly sell the farm to put Apple's Rolex on their wrist. That's what I expect.
MacRumors has an excellent record of accuracy. Ming? 50/50. 9-5? Gurman is supposedly near-perfect when his articles are based on primary sources.
"... no issue whatsoever with 9to5 Mac's reporting of rumors derived from its own original sources. They obviously work hard to get this information, and it almost always turns out to be either wholly or substantially accurate. The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in.
If 9to5 Mac stuck to reporting only its own, originally-sourced rumors-and if they could rein in the more *ahem* enthusiastic members of their staff-they could easily be the undisputed go-to bastion of all Apple rumors."
So not that great when he posts 2nd source articles relying on analysts and the like or with some articles written by other staff members.
Well done, thanks for posting that link!
FYI, it's about 9to5Mac's track record, not MacRumors. And here are the two sentences it boils down to:
"That gives them an overall accuracy record of just under 45 percent. You'd do better by flipping a coin."
Even better, the article points out the inherent weakness: "The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in."
As the 9to5Mac rumors site is currently operated, it is more useless than useful.
I stopped reading anything from that site when they started putting in touch sensitive adds. Meaning interrupting the scrolling function. Previous to that I did read some of Gurmans articles just because they would make me laugh.
Even better, the article points out the inherent weakness: The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in
As the 9to5Mac rumors site is currently operated, it is more useless than useful.
I included that same sentence in my post if you read it, but you forgot to acknowledge the very important sentence it was connected to. Perhaps it was inconvenient to your stance that 9-5 is useless? The TUAW author at least had the integrity to give credit where credit was due.
Your takeaway, were you being honest, should have been that rumor articles written by Gurman and based on his own sources are highly likely to be substantially accurate. If you toss in the numerous stories using analysts or Digitimes or other 2nd/3rd hand reports the site's overall reliability is no better than a coin toss. So both the overall 45% 9-5 site reliability and Gurman's admirable high degree of accuracy can be true at the same time. He does appear to have some pretty good inside source or sources feeding him Apple news.
If you are a lazy or casual reader I can see where you might think that makes 9-5 more useless than useful, no different from AI? While it may be "hard to sort out the diamonds" it's not impossible. That's where our brains can help.
Comments
Can someone who has a good grasp on these rumors explain what is the big deal with the iWatch? I could see maybe if it was a stand alone phone with hotspot ability for other devices but then it would be huge because of the battery. Likely not much room for music or apps with how much room for storage.
I'm well aware that Apple hasn't announced anything but as far as Apple rumors go I can't see any reason to get excited about much yet.
That's the big question. Other company's digital watches haven't been compelling, but in the past Apple has been able to enter such markets and reinvent them. People are waiting to see if they can still do it without Steve Jobs.
I think that Jony Ive is still there, so even if the watch is conceptually the same as the others (which would be a disappointment), at least it will still be the most beautiful. And maybe that is the future of Apple in general without Steve Jobs: the maker of the most beautiful, but not fundamentally different, gadgets to everyone else.
Microsoft smart-watch plans apparently do include cross-platform compatibility. Yup, both Android and iOS.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/05/29/exclusive-a-microsoft-smartwatch-is-coming/
1. It is legit as are the delays
2. The analysts etc are hearing rumors that there is proof they were full of crap about some or all details and they are covering their butts.
The latter is almost always the truth. Case in point, Munster and his TV
I won't go into the credibility of Kuo's predictions, but I will say it's quite interesting to read the comments. As always you have three camps:
1) The Optimists: Those who are excited about the idea of an iWatch and don't care if it's any different from Samsung's offering as long as it's Apple-Sexy.
2) The Pessimists: Those who are just waiting to see post-Jobs Apple fail, with claims that Apple has lost it's innovation. These are also the one's who think watches are dead and Apple (as well as the rest of the industry) is wasting their time by even thinking about watches.
3) The Fence-Riders: These are the ones who are fine either way and just waiting to see what Apple announces before they form an official opinion.
As for me, I'm a bit of a hybrid of all 3. I'm a long time (20+ years) Apple user and iOS developer ( almost 4 years ). I've been keeping a close eye on the iWatch rumor-mill as well as observing the changes in the SDK over the last few WWDC events, and have to honestly say that Apple has been setting up for the release of the iWatch for some time now.
In the article (and comments) there's some doubt as to whether Apple can meet the challenges of making software for a smaller screen. I think that the features unveiled in iOS 8 point to a very simple solution, that's already available: Extensions. Specifically what's called "Today Widget/Extension". This could be what Apple has in mind for smaller screens. The iWatch would become and extension of the Notification Center on the iPhone. So developers would be able to bundle and Extension with their app designed specifically for the iWatch. Interactions would be simple (taps and swipes) like what's available in Notification Center.
There was a very interesting article posted yesterday (http://bit.ly/cooks-new-apple) which seems to shed some light on Tim Cooks vision of Apple's future: a more inclusive Apple. This is consistent with my theory of why apple pulled the iPod Nano, which was quickly converted to watches by the community and third-party accessory makers. It wasn't integrated into the ecosystem. It was closed to developers and the capabilities were very limited to playing music, checking the time and some basic Nike+ integration. This wasn't the future of wearables, but a stop-gap. Instead of just throwing some antennas in the Nano, Apple went back to the drawing board to rethink what the future of wearables would be and took it one step further. Now with HealthKit and HomeKit the iWatch is shaping up to be a real "must-have". Away to monitor your health and home with the same simplicity to add functionality through third party applications.
While Samsung dropped their wearable first, it's little more than the iPod Nano with the added antennas (exactly what apple avoided doing). Apple will change the game again with the iWatch and just like with iPhone, everyone will be playing catchup.
MacRumors has an excellent record of accuracy. Ming? 50/50. 9-5? Gurman is supposedly near-perfect when his articles are based on primary sources.
"... no issue whatsoever with 9to5 Mac's reporting of rumors derived from its own original sources. They obviously work hard to get this information, and it almost always turns out to be either wholly or substantially accurate. The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in.
If 9to5 Mac stuck to reporting only its own, originally-sourced rumors-and if they could rein in the more *ahem* enthusiastic members of their staff-they could easily be the undisputed go-to bastion of all Apple rumors."
So not that great when he posts 2nd source articles relying on analysts and the like or with some articles written by other staff members.
Everything else is more or less a re-iteration of past ideas and technology at this point. Its not like the laws of the universe will bend to anything and everything we wish for at the moment of our choosing.
There is very little that hasn't been imagined in science fiction at this point... Anyone who reads knows that a true "new" idea is not that easy to come by.
On a side note, i am seriously doubting mobile payments coming to iwatch if it is priced high as a premium device.
The iphone6 could have a scratchproof screen but i am still stuck with a case if the body is not scratchproof or dent proof (from falls). Also, i cant get rid of my wallet phone case unless they make drivers license and credit cards obsolete. Both of these are technically doable. perhaps drivers license are not feasable to implement due to disparate state government systems.
MP3 players are just portable music players. These existed as transistor radios even before Apple was a company.
Cell phones and smartphones existed well before Apple released the iPhone. Same for the tablet. The rumoured iWatch is not any more "a very old tech" than any of those items that are doing something different with a general form factor.
Wearables are coming and will be a huge market. I doubt Apple will ignore it.
I think the difference was being in control of one's content... That's really what the 'i' revolution was all about... The Personal computer was about having 'your own' computer. MP3's were the first vestiges of portable 'mobile' (I can 'program' a playlist) content.
Just like dumb phones existed before smartphones, watches existed before wearables. And watches had one duty... to keep one in sync with the world. When that was solve, then it became a fashion piece, from nerdy (chronometers) to gaudy (Versace). One would argue that wearables will do that and more, just like smartphones do phones and more.
Wearables are the huge market... everyone over the age of 5 needs to be in sync with their world. and just like smartphones, the reasons why can only be guessed at this time in their gestation.
Besides interdimensional space travel or wormhole transportation or direct brain VR interfaces or the cure for death...
Everything else is more or less a re-iteration of past ideas and technology at this point. Its not like the laws of the universe will bend to anything and everything we wish for at the moment of our choosing.
There is very little that hasn't been imagined in science fiction at this point... Anyone who reads knows that a true "new" idea is not that easy to come by.
On a side note, i am seriously doubting mobile payments coming to iwatch if it is priced high as a premium device.
The iphone6 could have a scratchproof screen but i am still stuck with a case if the body is not scratchproof or dent proof (from falls). Also, i cant get rid of my wallet phone case unless they make drivers license and credit cards obsolete. Both of these are technically doable. perhaps drivers license are not feasable to implement due to disparate state government systems.
on your latter point, the more mobile a item is, the more durable it has to be. Watches in the early 1900's were massed produced for the first time (industrial revolution, vs guild craft), and you protected them ('kept them close to your vest'). You paid handsomely for a Rolex Clamshell that was water resistant to 3 Atmospheres. It wasn't until Timex made durability a marketing phrase ("it takes a licking, and keeps on ticking") did durability become commoditized. Even more so when Casio et al came out with digital watches.
Credit cards will be obsolete in 10 years, at least 'value' cards will be. Drivers' Licenses, could be less... all it takes is a Law and Order Techie in charge of DHS or a state like CA 'going paperless', and the national ID database will just show up. There is no reason why passports and state issued IDs can't be tokenized. In some respects, that's a good thing... obviously, in others, it becomes a real bad thing, but the technology is not only doable... the economics is compelling.... it's really just public opinion that will hold back a 'national ID' system
Cook didn't allude to a timeframe. He alluded to Apple doing something but only release it when ready.
Nope. Not everyone will have a smart phone in 10 years. Whether by cost or by choice.
My guess would be Apple would want to debut the device and its capabilities a bit before it is widely available, particularly if it needs to deploy some SDK resources to developers. Price, capability, and aesthetic are going to be everything.
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/12/30/2013-rumor-retrospective-all-the-leaks-were/
MacRumors has an excellent record of accuracy. Ming? 50/50. 9-5? Gurman is supposedly near-perfect when his articles are based on primary sources.
"... no issue whatsoever with 9to5 Mac's reporting of rumors derived from its own original sources. They obviously work hard to get this information, and it almost always turns out to be either wholly or substantially accurate. The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in.
If 9to5 Mac stuck to reporting only its own, originally-sourced rumors-and if they could rein in the more *ahem* enthusiastic members of their staff-they could easily be the undisputed go-to bastion of all Apple rumors."
So not that great when he posts 2nd source articles relying on analysts and the like or with some articles written by other staff members.
Well done, thanks for posting that link!
FYI, it's about 9to5Mac's track record, not MacRumors. And here are the two sentences it boils down to:
"That gives them an overall accuracy record of just under 45 percent. You'd do better by flipping a coin."
Even better, the article points out the inherent weakness: "The problem is, it's hard to sort out these diamonds from the piles of typical "telephone game" nonsense Apple rumors they're buried in."
As the 9to5Mac rumors site is currently operated, it is more useless than useful.
http://www.tuaw.com/2013/12/30/2013-rumor-retrospective-all-the-leaks-were/
Good find!
I stopped reading anything from that site when they started putting in touch sensitive adds. Meaning interrupting the scrolling function. Previous to that I did read some of Gurmans articles just because they would make me laugh.
I included that same sentence in my post if you read it, but you forgot to acknowledge the very important sentence it was connected to. Perhaps it was inconvenient to your stance that 9-5 is useless? The TUAW author at least had the integrity to give credit where credit was due.
Your takeaway, were you being honest, should have been that rumor articles written by Gurman and based on his own sources are highly likely to be substantially accurate. If you toss in the numerous stories using analysts or Digitimes or other 2nd/3rd hand reports the site's overall reliability is no better than a coin toss. So both the overall 45% 9-5 site reliability and Gurman's admirable high degree of accuracy can be true at the same time. He does appear to have some pretty good inside source or sources feeding him Apple news.
If you are a lazy or casual reader I can see where you might think that makes 9-5 more useless than useful, no different from AI? While it may be "hard to sort out the diamonds" it's not impossible. That's where our brains can help.