Continued production issues may force Apple to delay 'iWatch' until 2015, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo claim

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    fallenjt wrote: »
    No iWatch...
    Maybe a Fitness/Health band...I love to see a $149 fitness band that bury Galaxy Gear and bunch of Android wearable devices.

    How does that not fall under the category of the generic term iWatch. You wear it on your wrist and, like most (if not all) fitness bands with a display it will tell you the time. All iWatch really refers to is being a wrist-worn electronic device from Apple.
  • Reply 62 of 79
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member

    Merriam Websters definintion:

     

    watch:  a device that shows what time it is and that you wear on your wrist or carry in a pocket.

     

    Based on this my iPhone is a watch.

     

    Apple may make something that you wear on your wrist but it will not be called an iWatch.

     

    People lets try a little harder on this.

  • Reply 63 of 79
    smiles77smiles77 Posts: 668member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post



    But isn't the lack of parts the exact sort of thing you'd expect from a top-secret new project?




    You'd expect so additional security but at some point they need to source millions of components and have a manufacturer build their product. This would likely be a Chinese company (I don't think some contracted US company would be any more secretive). At some point there is just too much going on for Apple to be able to control every aspect despite their wishes.But if they think it'll only be, say, 1 million units per quarter then it would likely be kept secret for longer.



    Or Apple could announce and demo this year with a release for next year. This could be done to get partners on-board (like with the Apple TV, even though that didn't work out as they wanted) or so they get people to keep from signing new contracts (like with the 6 months before the iPhone launch), or because they simply know they won't be able to keep it a secret a week or two before launch so they want to own the original announcement (which may be what they did with the iPad which didn't launch until April 2010, and that was only the WiFi version). Note the latter wasn't because they were still doing the MacWorld event for announcement as that ended in 2009.



    I think it's reasonable to think they could be 3 to 6 months out from launching after they announce and demo a wearable.



    I agree with all your points here. In fact, I believe that under normal circumstances it'd be fairly probable that they would postpone the launch for next year at this point. The most significant factor in swaying me from that belief is Tim Cook's comments, which I believe he'll be held to strictly and I don't think he would have made lightly at all. And that's why I'm thinking wearables this fall: nothing else that I'm aware of is really close. I even question if Apple TV could stand in instead, since Apple's already been in that category for a while now – making it not 'new'.

  • Reply 64 of 79
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kent909 wrote: »
    There will never be an iWatch!!!

    Seems pretty shortsighted to say there will never be a wrist-worn electronic device from Apple.
  • Reply 65 of 79
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member
    Quote:


    Seems pretty shortsighted to say there will never be a wrist-worn electronic device from Apple.


    See my revised post.

  • Reply 66 of 79
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kent909 wrote: »
    See my revised post.

    Again, and as your definition clearly shows, the term watch is generic and the preceding 'i' simply means it's from Apple. I haven't seen any conversations here are debating the merits of specifically calling it an iWatch. First there would have to be a strong consensus on there being a wearables market Apple wants to delve further into. After that we could then try to figure out the best and/or most likely name.
  • Reply 67 of 79
    kent909kent909 Posts: 731member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Again, and as your definition clearly shows, the term watch is generic and the preceding 'i' simply means it's from Apple. I haven't seen any conversations here are debating the merits of specifically calling it an iWatch. First there would have to be a strong consensus on there being a wearables market Apple wants to delve further into. After that we could then try to figure out the best and/or most likely name.

    My point is that if Apple does a wearable, I am sure it will be multifunctional.  One of those functions will be a clock and only because it will have timing functions and that requires clock capability. My car has a clock in it but it is called a car and not a clock. By choosing iWatch is just lazy and unimaginative. Or maybe easier to type than multifunctional wrist band.  

  • Reply 68 of 79
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    smiles77 wrote: »

    Impossible. Tim Cook said that they would enter new markets THIS YEAR. That does not mean 2015.

    Calendar or fiscal?
    Seriously, Ming needs to go back to the last job he was good at: "sucky sucky, five dollah"

    Hehe. That reminds me of the pussy menu in Patpong Night Market in Bangkok:

    1000

    kent909 wrote: »
    Apple may make something that you wear on your wrist but it will not be called an iWatch.

    It may be a necklace. If it's going to tell me time/running pace et cetera it better be closer to my ear than my watch is.
  • Reply 69 of 79
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    How does that not fall under the category of the generic term iWatch. You wear it on your wrist and, like most (if not all) fitness bands with a display it will tell you the time. All iWatch really refers to is being a wrist-worn electronic device from Apple.

    Last time I checked they patented iTime too...That makes more sense because all the sensors for fitness/exercise are associated with Time. iWatch makes more sense for a TV set than a watch on your wrist that's not intended as a time clock, but fitness measurements.

  • Reply 70 of 79
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kent909 wrote: »
    By choosing iWatch is just lazy and unimaginative.

    Then so is iPhone, iPad, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Pro, and arguably the iPod, although I don't recall pod being used in that way previously.

    If you just want one example just take iPhone. That device is so much more than a phone. Phone is simply one app on the device but it's named as such because that's how people associate with that specific evolution of technology. The same could very well be true for iWatch as it follows in the exact same way for a wrist-worn consumer electronic device.

    I've never really cared for any of Apple's nomenclature, especially the 'i' naming convention but believe me when I say they spend a lot of time figuring out what they believe will be most effective to sell their product. The thing about these unimaginative names is they quickly stop being titles but get fully associated to what they do or how one feels about them. You don't hear "iPhone" today and think "but it's more than a phone, it'll never catch on," do you?

    Will it be iWatch or iTime or aWristocrat (classy¡)? I have no idea and frankly I don't care. My only desire is for a product that suits my needs.
  • Reply 71 of 79
    adrayvenadrayven Posts: 460member
    Ming-Chi Kuo is selling short.. trying to pull the stock down.. has been posting 'negative' stuff for weeks now... many of his 'rumors' have been countered by other analysts.. It's like they are battling over long and short.. and has nothing to do what reality.. lol
  • Reply 72 of 79
    solipsismx wrote: »
    kent909 wrote: »
    See my revised post.

    Again, and as your definition clearly shows, the term watch is generic and the preceding 'i' simply means it's from Apple. I haven't seen any conversations here are debating the merits of specifically calling it an iWatch. First there would have to be a strong consensus on there being a wearables market Apple wants to delve further into. After that we could then try to figure out the best and/or most likely name.

    Not in this thread, but we've had extensive debate on a possible name on AI in other threads. iTime is patented, not that that counts for a lot.
  • Reply 73 of 79
    philboogie wrote: »
    smiles77 wrote: »

    Impossible. Tim Cook said that they would enter new markets THIS YEAR. That does not mean 2015.

    Calendar or fiscal?
    Seriously, Ming needs to go back to the last job he was good at: "sucky sucky, five dollah"



    It may be a necklace. If it's going to tell me time/running pace et cetera it better be closer to my ear than my watch is.

    It's already been well established here—by those in the know—that the wearable will be a nose-ring.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    As much as I'd like to believe the iWatch was coming this year, there has been absolutely nothing happening. No parts, no product orders, no manufacturing leaks.....nothing. It's not happening right now. And because it is nearing the fall and Apple's major product launches, there is no possibility of that changing in 2014.

     

    Kuo has no chance but to claim it is "delayed" because enough time has past without a peep to make it impossible for 2014. His guess was wrong, but instead of ever being wrong, he will continued to be heralded as an accurate analyst...for the 1 in 100 things he gets right, and the 99 he successfully backtracks on before its too late.

     

    I think this guy is a joke and should not have his words freely republished.

  • Reply 75 of 79
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Adrayven View Post



    Ming-Chi Kuo is selling short.. trying to pull the stock down.. has been posting 'negative' stuff for weeks now... many of his 'rumors' have been countered by other analysts.. It's like they are battling over long and short.. and has nothing to do what reality.. lol



    It has everything to do with reality. He realized he was completely wrong about Apple ever planning to create an iWatch or a 5.5 iPhone in 2014, and has successfully backtracked by using the common copout "manufacturing issues caused delay".

     

    Considering he has been pulling the same for years, I can't imagine the issues Apple must be having with those products that have been having "manufacturing delays" for several years now.

  • Reply 76 of 79
    robogoborobogobo Posts: 378member

    I already preordered.  

  • Reply 77 of 79
    robogoborobogobo Posts: 378member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post

     

    As much as I'd like to believe the iWatch was coming this year, there has been absolutely nothing happening. No parts, no product orders, no manufacturing leaks.....nothing. It's not happening right now. And because it is nearing the fall and Apple's major product launches, there is no possibility of that changing in 2014.

     

    Kuo has no chance but to claim it is "delayed" because enough time has past without a peep to make it impossible for 2014. His guess was wrong, but instead of ever being wrong, he will continued to be heralded as an accurate analyst...for the 1 in 100 things he gets right, and the 99 he successfully backtracks on before its too late.

     

    I think this guy is a joke and should not have his words freely republished.


    I'd love to see that Apple had been intentionally leaking fake 4.7" and 5.5" iPhone 6 parts and that the real products are safely being kept secret, including the iWatch and the real iPhone 6, same size as the 5s.  I'd literally laugh my ass off.  Right off.

  • Reply 78 of 79
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by robogobo View Post

     

    I'd love to see that Apple had been intentionally leaking fake 4.7" and 5.5" iPhone 6 parts and that the real products are safely being kept secret, including the iWatch and the real iPhone 6, same size as the 5s.  I'd literally laugh my ass off.  Right off.




    I would love that too, but secrecy on that level just doesn't exist anymore. Not for iPhone. Too much money and too big of industry rides on iPhone. There are enough interested parties out there to assure that the iPhone cannot be completely kept secret this close to launch.

     

    Unlike, for instance, the Mac Pro. Apple was able to blindside people with that product because such a small market segment was waiting for it, and many have given up on expecting it. There wasn't a whole industry of watchers, analysts, accessory makers and factory workers leaking info right and left.

Sign In or Register to comment.