In my opinion, Apple could simply add a few features to create the most compelling "smart watch" to augment the accelerometer in the iPod nano 6th generation
Bluetooth 4.0
altimeter
ambient light
barometer
GPS
gyroscope
heart rate monitor
magnetometer
The iPod nano 6th generation was already a compelling device in its time.
This is why I don't see why these iwatches ideals that big, apples probably going to kill all iPods and replace with iPhone with IPad selection, just the iPhone without phone will probably have a secret to it that makes it $400-500 vs iPhone that is $650, then this Iwatch will be iPod nano next gen, featuring the camera from old iPod nano, and mostly software based changes from there.
Apple's anticipated "iWatch" may carry a price of around $400 when it goes on sale, though the wearable device is likely to be offered at a range of price points, according to a new report. . . .
The iPad was rumored to be around $1000 just before Jobs unveiled it in 2010, wasn't it? This seems like Apple setting expectations to me. I guess we'll see soon.
No way apple comes out with multiple versions of this watch on the first go round. Multiple colts maybe but it will be one watch. Apple never introduced a new product category with multiple versions of a product (except storage size). They'll come out with one, high end version this year, and them once all the high end fruit is picked, they will diversify the product line down the road.
With all the rumored features… biofeedback, star counter, gravity manipulator, walk of shame transmogrifier, time travel… doesn't sound that pricey to me….
They will most likely announce the new watch during the September event. And honestly I can't wait to see what apple has envisioned for a wearable device. But sadly as with most of Apples devices it will look stunning but be lacking in specs vs the competition as is the case for most of their products. Don't get Mr wrong I am a die hard Apple fan who is deeply imbedded into their ecosystem ad they only way Apple would lose me as a customer is if they started creating products from cheap materials and their devices stopped looking good.
Belm Designs, known for it’s cutting-edge design was asked to participate in a design contest featuring future products from some of today’s tech-giants. After reading the design brief we were totally up to the challenge.
The industry buzz right now is a wearable smart device that’s capable of entertainment, communication and utilitarian tasks. We went right to work on what we thought might be a note worthy design that came straight from a tech giant’s own design team.
We toyed with different shapes and even based a few on current offerings on the market today. We found that when it comes to a watch or in this case a “Smart Watch”, a traditional circular shape was most favorable. Most people are quite comfortable with the shape and it still exudes class and style.
To keep things simple, the watchband was created from a stretchable rubber-nylon mix with micro perforations for maximum breathability yet strong and lightweight. The traditional clasp was replaced in lieu of a “Mag-Twist Lock” type clasp for easy removal.
The watch is constructed with a uni-body design. The body is pressed from a single titanium disk into shape and CNC milled to perfection. The face of the device is powered by a circular touchscreen with retina display to handle all your HD viewing needs. The device is also equipped with 4G and blue tooth communication and powered by a dual core microprocessor for multitasking operations. Product finishing is complete with chamfered edge treatments and a mix of titanium and chrome accents.
And the video...
But if Apple were to create a classic timepiece, I wouldn't mind if it looked like this:
I'll be they "considered" prices from $100 to $1000, what features they could include for what price, how much it could operate independently and how much it depends on a connected phone and whether that connected phone had to be an iPhone and which iPhones it supports connecting to. And a whole lot more.
I'm still not sure what the utility of of this would be for me, but I am interested in seeing what they produce.
If it's a nice-looking product, and it actually has some good functionality, I don't see how $399 is a lot.
I don't understand these guys who come on here and say that if they're not interested in a product, it doesn't deserve to exist.
I sincerely doubt if I'll be interested in this for myself, but if they come up with something that's popular and successful, that's great. It's the same with the iPad—I'd be using it as a reader 99% of the time, and without a file structure, it's absolutely worthless to me for that. I'm still glad it's enjoyed success, and I can certainly see a use case for it for somebody with different needs.
It just struck me at the WWDC keynote how jazzed everybody seemed to be—they apparently feel like they're really on a roll and that there's a lot more coming. This huge venue and purpose-built building for this announcement really seems to underscore that. I hope they're right. I'll be watching with great interest even if nothing they announce is exactly right for me. That sets me apart from a lot of commenters here I guess.
(I did say that if the iWatch really is this old-people-with-medical-problems medical device that a lot of people seem to think it is, that Apple will explode their cachet with their core demographic, and I stand by that—and that's speaking as an old-person-with-medical-problems!)
$400 is not too much. It all depends on what this rumored device is capable of. We will obviously all know the answer to that on Sept 9. If I'm impressed, I might get one, if I'm not, well, then I wont.
I want Apple to make innovative, hi quality products and price them appropriately.
I don't want Apple to make cheap crap and sell stuff for rock bottom prices like almost everybody else does. And regardless of what the final price happens to be, there will be people who will complain anyhow.
Going beyond a possible $400 starting price, it's possible that Apple could compete with luxury watches at the high end of the market. Earlier this year, in April, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities said that Apple's "iWatch" could reach prices in the thousands of dollars with some premium models.
I can't stand analysts, but I hope that that analyst is right!
I want to see the premium models of iWatches go for more than a thousand dollars!
While everybody else is pricing their products cheaper and cheaper, and catering to people in the third world who have no money, Apple should just concentrate on making the best products possible, sparing no expense.
I strongly believe Apple will create a single iWatch with numerous options for bands. I believe that Apple discontinued the wildly popular iPod nano 6th generation due to the development of the iWatch.
I believe another option is a PAN of devices similar to offerings from Polar; activity monitor, heart rate monitor, watch - each an independent device augmenting a personal area network of the quantified self.
I fully agree.
I don’t think Apple is going to make an iWatch, I think they’re going to rebrand the iPod, and take the name very literally this time. I think Apple will keep the basic unit as simple, small, and efficient as possible, and keep it very personal, particularly if it is to have its own secure enclave, and ability to be used with iWallet, as hinted at by Gruber. It will be your personal marker, for location tracking, opening locks, holding health data, and for payments. So instead of switching out watches, you keep your personal iPod with you at all times and just switch out different bands for different functionality/style. When you want to work out use the sensor-laden sports band, when you’re going to dinner you use your Apple liquid metal band, or your Burbury band, or Phillipe Patek band, or Tiffany’s band, etc; if you’re going backpacking or don’t want to bother with removing it use a battery booster band.
I think Apple will make a basic device with prices that are reasonable and consistent with how they price all their other products ($400 give or take sounds reasonable deepening on materials used). There will be a basic band included, but with the option to buy various others. I think they’ll leave premium brand pricing to the bands co-produced by other luxury brands, with Apple benefitting by selling the bands in their stores.
All of Apple’s competitors so far have been focusing on the device itself, which has been limiting and disappointing. The key is in functionality, and the flexibility to make that functionality appeal to a mass audience. The switchable bands will provide the flexibility, while the functionality will be promoted using simple, but powerful metaphors, that the iPod will be able to replace your KEYS and your WALLET, making your life much simpler.* In doing so Apple will use its key advantage, which cannot be duplicated by any competitor, its ecosystem. Apple will be the only company that will truly be able to deliver a device that can (ultimately) replace your wallet and your keys.
*I stayed at Walt Disney World for a week for a conference last year, and I used a basic NFC wristband as my door lock, ID, and wallet. It was very liberating to only have to carry my phone and my wristband to get anything I needed.
I think Apple has an opportunity here to get people to buy multiple wearables for a single wrist. For instance, they could have one for under $150 for someone that mostly fitness band that works flawlessly with your iPhone, another for the non-luxury smartwatch market that is doesn't everything a luxury model does but isn't a status symbol or made with expensive metals and leathers (a blue collar smartwatch), and then a luxury model with various designs.
All that would go against Apple's product history but it's a radically different market with price variations from the nearly free to hundreds of thousands-of-dollars for devices that all have the same basic output. If these rumours are true and if Apple can do what I think they could then I'd probably opt for at least two of them so that I can switch my more luxury version with a less expensive version (like going from work to the gym) so i can still have the sensors working and responding back to my iPhone.
I think you got it! The idea is similar to iPod Shuffle and iPod. The Shuffle was targeted for jogger or runner in you while you kept thousands of sing in your full blown iPod.
First of all, I don't think Apple is going to announce iWatch on 9/9. It is so hard for me to believe that we have not seen any parts leaks, like the one for iPhone 6. I don't think they are going to announce vaporware like Moto360 and others. I think they are just going to let Samsung and LG come out with variety of versions and once they give up with their failures they will come out with one and just crush the market - Now is not the time. Finally, iWatch is just the wish of Wall Street and come 9/9 they will dump Apple stocks when there is no iWatch announcements. Pump and Dump. Come on guys - Did we all forget Gene Munster and is consistent sorry about Apple TV, as in Television. We haven't heard from him for a while.
*I stayed at Walt Disney World for a week for a conference last year, and I used a basic NFC wristband as my door lock, ID, and wallet. It was very liberating to only have to carry my phone and my wristband to get anything I needed.
Like ski passes, these "MagicBands" use a passive NFC that is akin to a barcode, qr code or simple magnetic stripe.
Devices with computing power have the ability to respond differently according to the signal (or data) received, making them hugely more powerful.
For some reason, we need more security outside of Disneyland to protect our purchasing power, and this is hard work at every level from Apple to VISA/MC to vendors. Hopefully it can still be as easy to use.
The sheer number of possibile utilities now available, from payments to "membership" (ie. pre-paid or subscription items such as travel cards, loyalty cards, visitors passes etc.) to door and vehicle locks to business cards, means some form of revolutionary NFC device could be close.
With an intelligent computing device behind the NFC, there is, of course, the benefit of the possibility of more-advanced two-way communication. The obvious example being itemised billing.
"How many bananas have I bought this month?"
"What percentage of them have I eaten?"
"How much money can I save next month and can you add it to my shopping reminders list as necessary?"
"Add a reminder when I next enter fruit aisle in my local supermarket to not buy too many bananas"
You get the point, anyway.
Don't really want my passport/National Insurance/ID etc. on there if I can help it though.
Governments would love it, it's just the "near" of "near field" I have a problem with. With a decent antennae, how near. Who?
In any case, big data can go personal in more ways than health, and we could all benefit from some intelligent use of NFC.
I really wonder how many people are out there that don't care about the actual features and just decide to buy based on a price....
Like mentioned before we do not know what the product is. What it can do. Even how it will be worn.
And "$400" is not a range. 400 +/- 10 would be a range. Or 400 +600/-100.
There could be reasons for quite different lines of that product in contrast to the iPhone and iPad. The iPhone was a replacement for other phones. So that's "phone vs phone". The iPad was set against - well actually nothing because there was no established tablet market. People didn't have a tablet before.
Assuming this wearable goes to the wrist then there will be a lot of people wearing nothing there. Or they wear a more or less precious watch that beyond functionality has the purpose of jewelry. No one will think of a tech product like this as jewelry. And no one will wear one next to the other. So either apple is working on something that only applies when you usually don't wear your jewelry - eg during excercise and sports. Or they have one version non jewelry for the "non wearer" and others that like iCar go into watches of premium makers. That might still be a hard sell as usually those customers expect craftsmanship and mechanics, not a PCB and touchscreen in a gold housing.
Comments
Apple's anticipated "iWatch" may carry a price of around $400 when it goes on sale, though the wearable device is likely to be offered at a range of price points, according to a new report. . . .
The iPad was rumored to be around $1000 just before Jobs unveiled it in 2010, wasn't it? This seems like Apple setting expectations to me. I guess we'll see soon.
Battery life on a 'smart' watch is a problem that I think has not been solved yet.
I am content to wait and see, and not get too excited.
With all the rumored features… biofeedback, star counter, gravity manipulator, walk of shame transmogrifier, time travel… doesn't sound that pricey to me….
Jony Ives will deliver an iWatch design that is simple, elegant, and timeless - no, not something that cannot tell the time (^_~).
Apple will develop a unique iWatch software solution unlike anything they have done before, that will be intuitive and functional.
If Apple does introduce the iWatch, Apple will have an iWatch SDK ready to go; and will have already developed a library of iWatch apps.
I believe that Apple will develop a round iWatch that will look something like this:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/14024755/iWatch
And the video...
But if Apple were to create a classic timepiece, I wouldn't mind if it looked like this:
https://www.behance.net/gallery/smartwatch-concept/14929833
Here is a Smart Watch UI concept.
https://www.behance.net/gallery/19204347/Smart-Watch-iOS-7
400? I will pass on that one.
I'll be they "considered" prices from $100 to $1000, what features they could include for what price, how much it could operate independently and how much it depends on a connected phone and whether that connected phone had to be an iPhone and which iPhones it supports connecting to. And a whole lot more.
I'm still not sure what the utility of of this would be for me, but I am interested in seeing what they produce.
If it's a nice-looking product, and it actually has some good functionality, I don't see how $399 is a lot.
Well, if Apple has accomplished anything with the iPhone 5 and 5S, it's taught everybody the word "chamfered".
Well, if Apple has accomplished anything with the iPhone 5 and 5S, it's taught everybody the word "chamfered".
True enough.
I have to admit that I had no idea whatsoever what it meant before.
I don't understand these guys who come on here and say that if they're not interested in a product, it doesn't deserve to exist.
I sincerely doubt if I'll be interested in this for myself, but if they come up with something that's popular and successful, that's great. It's the same with the iPad—I'd be using it as a reader 99% of the time, and without a file structure, it's absolutely worthless to me for that. I'm still glad it's enjoyed success, and I can certainly see a use case for it for somebody with different needs.
It just struck me at the WWDC keynote how jazzed everybody seemed to be—they apparently feel like they're really on a roll and that there's a lot more coming. This huge venue and purpose-built building for this announcement really seems to underscore that. I hope they're right. I'll be watching with great interest even if nothing they announce is exactly right for me. That sets me apart from a lot of commenters here I guess.
(I did say that if the iWatch really is this old-people-with-medical-problems medical device that a lot of people seem to think it is, that Apple will explode their cachet with their core demographic, and I stand by that—and that's speaking as an old-person-with-medical-problems!)
$400 is not too much. It all depends on what this rumored device is capable of. We will obviously all know the answer to that on Sept 9. If I'm impressed, I might get one, if I'm not, well, then I wont.
I want Apple to make innovative, hi quality products and price them appropriately.
I don't want Apple to make cheap crap and sell stuff for rock bottom prices like almost everybody else does. And regardless of what the final price happens to be, there will be people who will complain anyhow.
Going beyond a possible $400 starting price, it's possible that Apple could compete with luxury watches at the high end of the market. Earlier this year, in April, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities said that Apple's "iWatch" could reach prices in the thousands of dollars with some premium models.
I can't stand analysts, but I hope that that analyst is right!
I want to see the premium models of iWatches go for more than a thousand dollars!
While everybody else is pricing their products cheaper and cheaper, and catering to people in the third world who have no money, Apple should just concentrate on making the best products possible, sparing no expense.
I strongly believe Apple will create a single iWatch with numerous options for bands. I believe that Apple discontinued the wildly popular iPod nano 6th generation due to the development of the iWatch.
I believe another option is a PAN of devices similar to offerings from Polar; activity monitor, heart rate monitor, watch - each an independent device augmenting a personal area network of the quantified self.
I fully agree.
I think you got it! The idea is similar to iPod Shuffle and iPod. The Shuffle was targeted for jogger or runner in you while you kept thousands of sing in your full blown iPod.
Like ski passes, these "MagicBands" use a passive NFC that is akin to a barcode, qr code or simple magnetic stripe.
Devices with computing power have the ability to respond differently according to the signal (or data) received, making them hugely more powerful.
For some reason, we need more security outside of Disneyland to protect our purchasing power, and this is hard work at every level from Apple to VISA/MC to vendors. Hopefully it can still be as easy to use.
The sheer number of possibile utilities now available, from payments to "membership" (ie. pre-paid or subscription items such as travel cards, loyalty cards, visitors passes etc.) to door and vehicle locks to business cards, means some form of revolutionary NFC device could be close.
With an intelligent computing device behind the NFC, there is, of course, the benefit of the possibility of more-advanced two-way communication. The obvious example being itemised billing.
"How many bananas have I bought this month?"
"What percentage of them have I eaten?"
"How much money can I save next month and can you add it to my shopping reminders list as necessary?"
"Add a reminder when I next enter fruit aisle in my local supermarket to not buy too many bananas"
You get the point, anyway.
Don't really want my passport/National Insurance/ID etc. on there if I can help it though.
Governments would love it, it's just the "near" of "near field" I have a problem with. With a decent antennae, how near. Who?
In any case, big data can go personal in more ways than health, and we could all benefit from some intelligent use of NFC.
Like mentioned before we do not know what the product is. What it can do. Even how it will be worn.
And "$400" is not a range. 400 +/- 10 would be a range. Or 400 +600/-100.
There could be reasons for quite different lines of that product in contrast to the iPhone and iPad. The iPhone was a replacement for other phones. So that's "phone vs phone". The iPad was set against - well actually nothing because there was no established tablet market. People didn't have a tablet before.
Assuming this wearable goes to the wrist then there will be a lot of people wearing nothing there. Or they wear a more or less precious watch that beyond functionality has the purpose of jewelry. No one will think of a tech product like this as jewelry. And no one will wear one next to the other.
So either apple is working on something that only applies when you usually don't wear your jewelry - eg during excercise and sports. Or they have one version non jewelry for the "non wearer" and others that like iCar go into watches of premium makers. That might still be a hard sell as usually those customers expect craftsmanship and mechanics, not a PCB and touchscreen in a gold housing.