Can anyone explain to me what an iWatch could do that an iPhone can't? I'm not being ironic - I actually don't know what the added value of a smart watch is.
I'll get back to you later in the day, Tuesday.
We've seen what unimaginative hacks have done, so I can understand why you'd ask.
Here's a hint: Apple sees this as big as the iPad market in sales so it's not gonna look like what we've seen dreamed up by the Samsung clown squad.
I think that's the only way for Apple to achieve the practical thinness needed for a wrist worn device. Also I doubt there will be any sort of audio jack.
I think that's the only way for Apple to achieve the practical thinness needed for a wrist worn device. Also I doubt there will be any sort of audio jack.
If it could receive power wirelessly that would be great, as it could suck some power from your iPhone if it starts running low (assuming you have your iPhone somewhere on your body, or in your bag).
Can anyone explain to me what an iWatch could do that an iPhone can't? I'm not being ironic - I actually don't know what the added value of a smart watch is.
iPhone is a bit big for an iPod.
I'm hoping iWatch looks like a clean standard watch that will work as a stand alone device.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/197200/InteliusQ" style="display:inline-block;">@InteliusQ</a>
You owned cheese grater Mac Pro didn't you? As someone with hairy wrists that concept, as pretty as it is, terrifies me!
Speaking of which, I am starting to get stage fright by proxy for Tuesday. With all the talk about Apple getting into fashion, I am getting flashbacks to that horrendous Samsung Unboxed event when they thought they could put on a 1950s style musical and get away with it. What experience does Apple really have with fashion, really? They have excellent design sense and elegant high tech is always in fashion but now they are about to get into an area they have never been in before. That worries me. It is like Apple opening up a fast food franchise or Apple making an automobile. It may sound like a good idea at first but will it really be a success? Apple once sold socks. Does anyone remember that? I suspect that Apple is thankful that no one does.
I remember the socks, shirts too. But Apple the sock seller didn't have Angela Ahrendts aboard. It's not Apple, per se, that will put on a show Tuesday, but Angela, Paul Deneve (former CEO of Yves Saint Laurent who Apple hired a year ago), and others with such experience who will have organized parts of the event. No worries.
[@]InteliusQ[/@], sensing that the opportunities to post geeky concept watch porn ends on Sept 9, ejaculates one last oversized load of concept watch porn into the forums.
The high-end watchmakers of the world (Rolex, etc), companies that have existed for hundreds of years in some cases, will be gone in ten years if they don't partner with Apple or some other tech giant. Today smart watches are big, ugly, and geeky. After Tuesday they will be much, much closer to a fashionable high-end watch. In two, three years, the value imparted by a smartwatch (all the hundreds of useful functions and applets that will evolve) will be so significant that few will consider giving up real estate on their wrist for an old fashioned luxury timepiece, even if its a $50,000 diamond encrusted Rolex. These folks will demand a $50k diamond encrusted smartwatch. They won't get that from the Swiss watch makers alone, as those companies don't have software operating systems and ecosystems of thousands of apps; the very things that define a smartwatch and that take a decade or more to evolve, as only Apple, Google (with Android) and Microsoft (with Windows Mobile) have accomplished. There are no other players, and even Microsoft cannot be considered a strong player. So it's Apple with its bulletproof, stable, and elegant software experience, or the Wild West with Android software that reports your every move back to Google (so they can send you a targeted advertisement). Which ecosystem vendor are the Swiss watch makers going to partner with for the smart version of a $50k Rolex? This is what I think Apple is setting themselves up to be; the connection between the tech world and the high-end fashion world. It's going to get more interesting after Tuesday.
The high-end watchmakers of the world (Rolex, etc), companies that have existed for hundreds of years in some cases, will be gone in ten years if they don't partner with Apple or some other tech giant. Today smart watches are big, ugly, and geeky. After Tuesday they will be much, much closer to a fashionable high-end watch. In two, three years, the value imparted by a smartwatch (all the hundreds of useful functions and applets that will evolve) will be so significant that few will consider giving up real estate on their wrist for an old fashioned luxury timepiece, even if its a $50,000 diamond encrusted Rolex. These folks will demand a $50k diamond encrusted smartwatch. They won't get that from the Swiss watch makers alone, as those companies don't have software operating systems and ecosystems of thousands of apps; the very things that define a smartwatch and that take a decade or more to evolve, as only Apple, Google (with Android) and Microsoft (with Windows Mobile) have accomplished. There are no other players, and even Microsoft cannot be considered a strong player. So it's Apple with its bulletproof, stable, and elegant software experience, or the Wild West with Android software that reports your every move back to Google (so they can send you a targeted advertisement). Which ecosystem vendor are the Swiss watch makers going to partner with for the smart version of a $50k Rolex? This is what I think Apple is setting themselves up to be; the connection between the tech world and the high-end fashion world. It's going to get more interesting after Tuesday.
I'm very much afraid that they would choose the latter, having no taste in such matters and not wanting to give any control (at least in matters of style) to Apple. But time will tell.
[@]InteliusQ[/@], sensing that the opportunities to post geeky concept watch porn ends on Sept 9, ejaculates one last oversized load of concept watch porn into the forums.
I think you're way too optimistic. He has 39 1/2 hours left!
Apple's hiring away of an LVMH sales VP, reported back in July, suggests that the iWatch will be more expensive, at least in some incarnations, than merely a $400 competitor to the geeky and chunky offerings currently defining the space. It just doesn't seem likely such a person, already at the top in the world of luxury watches, would jump ship from that prestigious position to hawk $400 consumer electronic wearables. The iWatch, or whatever it's named, will take Apple significantly upmarket. Those rumors of a $1000+ priced variant seem like they might have a good chance of being accurate.
There may be a basic version for the every day wearer, priced at $400 or thereabouts, and it will be refined, but the real target is the upmarket fashion model that will define Apple as the purveyor of the preferred OS and ecosystem to the luxury watchmakers. This is a theory of mine I'm gaining more confidence in. Apple knows that fashion implies a wide array of choices and it makes sense to be the 'Intel Inside', so to speak, for a significant cut of the revenue, in the high end realm of smart watches, than to attempt to gear up manufacturing of your own broad line of designs. Make one or two incarnations that show off the tech in a high-end fashionable watch body, then invite the luxury watchmakers of the world into a partnership of great mutual benefit.
Can anyone explain to me what an iWatch could do that an iPhone can't? I'm not being ironic - I actually don't know what the added value of a smart watch is.
I bet. Its a mechanical watch with hidden sensors.
The high-end watchmakers of the world (Rolex, etc), companies that have existed for hundreds of years in some cases, will be gone in ten years if they don't partner with Apple or some other tech giant.
The high-end watchmakers of the world (Rolex, etc), companies that have existed for hundreds of years in some cases, will be gone in ten years if they don't partner with Apple or some other tech giant.
The ability to make very small, very precise, mechanical devices could be very useful in the future world of nanotechnology. i.e. in assembling machines small enough to travel around in the bloodstream. I suspect ten years from now watchmakers will be more in demand than they are today, they just won't be making watches.
Can anyone explain to me what an iWatch could do that an iPhone can't? I'm not being ironic - I actually don't know what the added value of a smart watch is.
Sure, let me pull up Apple's iWatch product page and I'll get right back to you.
Alternatively, you can fucking wait 2 days until we actually find out what the product is and what it can do, to ask that question.
Comments
There won't be any visible connectors on the iWatch at all.
How will it charge then, are you thinking inductively?
I'll get back to you later in the day, Tuesday.
We've seen what unimaginative hacks have done, so I can understand why you'd ask.
Here's a hint: Apple sees this as big as the iPad market in sales so it's not gonna look like what we've seen dreamed up by the Samsung clown squad.
How will it charge then, are you thinking inductively?
Inductively or wirelessly.
I think that's the only way for Apple to achieve the practical thinness needed for a wrist worn device. Also I doubt there will be any sort of audio jack.
Inductively or wirelessly.
I think that's the only way for Apple to achieve the practical thinness needed for a wrist worn device. Also I doubt there will be any sort of audio jack.
If it could receive power wirelessly that would be great, as it could suck some power from your iPhone if it starts running low (assuming you have your iPhone somewhere on your body, or in your bag).
iPhone is a bit big for an iPod.
I'm hoping iWatch looks like a clean standard watch that will work as a stand alone device.
I remember the socks, shirts too. But Apple the sock seller didn't have Angela Ahrendts aboard. It's not Apple, per se, that will put on a show Tuesday, but Angela, Paul Deneve (former CEO of Yves Saint Laurent who Apple hired a year ago), and others with such experience who will have organized parts of the event. No worries.
The high-end watchmakers of the world (Rolex, etc), companies that have existed for hundreds of years in some cases, will be gone in ten years if they don't partner with Apple or some other tech giant. Today smart watches are big, ugly, and geeky. After Tuesday they will be much, much closer to a fashionable high-end watch. In two, three years, the value imparted by a smartwatch (all the hundreds of useful functions and applets that will evolve) will be so significant that few will consider giving up real estate on their wrist for an old fashioned luxury timepiece, even if its a $50,000 diamond encrusted Rolex. These folks will demand a $50k diamond encrusted smartwatch. They won't get that from the Swiss watch makers alone, as those companies don't have software operating systems and ecosystems of thousands of apps; the very things that define a smartwatch and that take a decade or more to evolve, as only Apple, Google (with Android) and Microsoft (with Windows Mobile) have accomplished. There are no other players, and even Microsoft cannot be considered a strong player. So it's Apple with its bulletproof, stable, and elegant software experience, or the Wild West with Android software that reports your every move back to Google (so they can send you a targeted advertisement). Which ecosystem vendor are the Swiss watch makers going to partner with for the smart version of a $50k Rolex? This is what I think Apple is setting themselves up to be; the connection between the tech world and the high-end fashion world. It's going to get more interesting after Tuesday.
I'm very much afraid that they would choose the latter, having no taste in such matters and not wanting to give any control (at least in matters of style) to Apple. But time will tell.
I think you're way too optimistic. He has 39 1/2 hours left!
(Oops! Skipped a day! 62 hours now.)
There may be a basic version for the every day wearer, priced at $400 or thereabouts, and it will be refined, but the real target is the upmarket fashion model that will define Apple as the purveyor of the preferred OS and ecosystem to the luxury watchmakers. This is a theory of mine I'm gaining more confidence in. Apple knows that fashion implies a wide array of choices and it makes sense to be the 'Intel Inside', so to speak, for a significant cut of the revenue, in the high end realm of smart watches, than to attempt to gear up manufacturing of your own broad line of designs. Make one or two incarnations that show off the tech in a high-end fashionable watch body, then invite the luxury watchmakers of the world into a partnership of great mutual benefit.
I bet. Its a mechanical watch with hidden sensors.
The high-end watchmakers of the world (Rolex, etc), companies that have existed for hundreds of years in some cases, will be gone in ten years if they don't partner with Apple or some other tech giant.
The ability to make very small, very precise, mechanical devices could be very useful in the future world of nanotechnology. i.e. in assembling machines small enough to travel around in the bloodstream. I suspect ten years from now watchmakers will be more in demand than they are today, they just won't be making watches.
Can anyone explain to me what an iWatch could do that an iPhone can't? I'm not being ironic - I actually don't know what the added value of a smart watch is.
Sure, let me pull up Apple's iWatch product page and I'll get right back to you.
Alternatively, you can fucking wait 2 days until we actually find out what the product is and what it can do, to ask that question.
I don't think anyone will be able to answer that until Sept 9. Including Samsung and Google.
If Samsung & Google can't answer before Sept.9, I don't have confidence they'll be able to answer it after Sept.9.
Looks pretty gorgeous (minus the UI). Wouldn't mind if the iWatch looked similar. Nicest mockup yet, because of its simplicity.