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.
Okay, I should have been specific about that. And I actually think they will still be making watches, but the majority will be smart watches, because I believe they will partner or somehow acquire access to the electronics and software/ecosystems. They won't develop that stuff themselves, but they will move to smart watches. Its sort of analogous to physical keyboards on mobile phones. Here's why... The front of a mobile phone represents valuable real estate, that, over time, shifted to the highest value function of the phone. That being the display, which can serve both input and output tasks simultaneously. So the valuable real estate consumed by an element that served only an input function was taken over by an element that could serve more functions. This is the type of thinking, by the way, that goes into the design of something like the original iPhone. You think about such things in context of design.
The real estate represented by a person's wrist is a limited commodity. It can host a number of items until that real estate is consumed. 50 years ago, the items that consumed a person's wrist real estate were limited in comparison to today. A bracelet, a timepiece. Today, a bracelet, a timepiece (traditional watch that serves primarily as a time keeper and fashion statement), a fitness band, a smart watch. One of these modern options, the smart watch, completely and easily supplants the time keeping functionality of legacy watches. But , so far, they haven't supplanted the fashion utility of legacy watches. But that day is coming. When it arrives, a person will have a choice of how he or she wants to utilize the limited real estate of his or her wrist. If a smart watch can be designed as elegantly as a traditional luxury watch while providing swipe access to a virtually unlimited selection of faces (home screens) that offer the person the ability to better match a watch to his or her wardrobe, a whole generation of people will drop from consideration most, or all, legacy luxury watches. If the killer app isn't wardrobe matching, then there's an unlimited field of available functions and capabilities (biometric access to secure areas, payment capabilities, fitness and health tracking, and a universe of apps), any one of which could be the killer app that tips the balance for each individual. Mechanical and limited function watches will lose the battle for limited wrist real estate to their smart descendants. At this point those companies that currently create mechanical movement wrist-worn timepieces had better be making smart watches, or had better have found a new line of work.
<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.
What experience does Apple have with fashion? Are you kidding? Two words: Deneve, Ahrendts. Formerly CEOs of St. Laurent and Burberry, respectively, now working for Tim at Apple. Ahrendts, or Dame Ahrendts, OBE, is especially respected for how she turned Burberry around by increasing its revenues and earnings while bringing it upmarket. I wouldn't worry.
I have visions of Samsung product designers right now getting their work areas in order, design workstations and apps fully updated and ready, so that as soon as the camera zooms in on the new iWatch they can start scratching out the new original Samsung copycat iWatch.
I have visions of Samsung product designers right now getting their work areas in order, design workstations and apps fully updated and ready, so that as soon as the camera zooms in on the new iWatch they can start scratching out the new original Samsung copycat iWatch.
I have visions of Samsung product designers right now getting their work areas in order, design workstations and apps fully updated and ready, so that as soon as the camera zooms in on the new iWatch they can start scratching out the new original Samsung copycat iWatch.
7th time’s the charm, as they say.
Oh, it'll work, on their usual clientele—once everybody knows what the real thing looks like. And remember, that's all most of them will know.
"Ours is half the price! And it has a quad-core processor!!"
(Would it say "3 disabled to save power" even in the fine print?)
(Would it say "3 disabled to save power" even in the fine print?)
‘Disabled’ would imply they care at all about the product. They’ll just take regular quad-core processors straight off the line that have three defective cores and drop them in it.
(Would it say "3 disabled to save power" even in the fine print?)
‘Disabled’ would imply they care at all about the product. They’ll just take regular quad-core processors straight off the line that have three defective cores and drop them in it.
Like AMD did with its “tri-core” processors.
I was thinking they could copy Intel's strategy with the 486: sell the 486SX cheaper than the DX because the math coprocessor is disabled. Then, if you wanted to upgrade your computer, and it was one of the ones with a coprocessor socket right next to the CPU socket (which you also paid extra for), they'd sell you a "487" math coprocessor, which was just a 486DX. You'd plug it in, and it would disable your original CPU and take over its function.
Haha thanks :-)
I thought I was missing the point but it seems the watch is either going to be surprise is all with its feature set or will be focusing more on being a fashion item (or both!). I think there's certainly going to be an audience for both cases, although it won't be as revolutionary as the iPhone was at all. Unless I can zap planets and solar systems with it.
It's going to be able to do a gazillion things that your iPhone can not do!
It's going to be a complete health diagnostics device right on your wrist, crammed full of all sorts of advanced and highly accurate sensors. Far more advanced and accurate than anything else that is on the market. An iPhone has none of those things! It will also have other features such as NFC perhaps. Payments from an iWatch?
Actually, I have no damn idea, and I am just speculating and having fun. But you can bet your ass that it will do things that no iPhone can do.
The iWatch will not do a million things. It'll do a bunch of things really well, but it won't be for composing emails or watching movies. It'll do those things that are not being done by iPhones, iPads and computers.
But but but but but NO ONE will buy it if you can’t watch your 4K movie on it!
Cut to LG releasing a watch with a 4K 1.3” display for that purpose alone.
Maybe not 4K movies, but it will have to have some fun stuff on it though. If it's all serious stuff like health monitoring, not sure how well that will go down.
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.
What experience does Apple have with fashion? Are you kidding? Two words: Deneve, Ahrendts. Formerly CEOs of St. Laurent and Burberry, respectively, now working for Tim at Apple. Ahrendts, or Dame Ahrendts, OBE, is especially respected for how she turned Burberry around by increasing its revenues and earnings while bringing it upmarket. I wouldn't worry.
<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.
See the above quotes to quell your stage fright.... and at this point I think the following can be safely copied here, since it is required reading AFAIC. Thanks go to one of the OP's above that posted it first in a previous thread.
Industrial designer Marc Newson is the latest in a long list of high-profile hires.
This list below was posted Thursday on Investor Village’s AAPL Sanity board by “centex” under the heading “Food for Thought.”
It’s largely based on the reporting of 9(2)5Mac’s Mark Gurman.
Angela Ahrendts: Chief, Retail and On-Line Stores; formerly CEO of Burberry
Jay Blahnik: Fitness guru and consultant to Nautilus, Gatorade, Schwinn, Nike
Ueyn Block: formerly Director of Optics & Systems Engineering at C8 MediSensorsr
Alexander Chan: Biomedical engineer, formerly with Vital Connect
Paul Deneve: Chief of Special Projects; formerly CEO, YSL (Yves St Laurent)
Nancy Dougherty: Hardware Engineer; formerly Chief of Hardware Development with Sano Intelligence
Tommy Elliot: Former senior director for Visa
Nima Ferdosi: Algorithms Architect, formerly embedded sensors expert for Vital Connect
Jimmy Iovine: Record producer; co-founder of Interscope Records and co-founder of Beats by Dre
Lisa Jackson: Former EPA Administrator
Marcelo Malini Lamago: formerly CTO of Cercacor, holder of more than 70 patents and/or patent applications
Yuming Liu: Formerly an experienced engineer who previously worked at Accuvein and O2MedTech
Kevin Lynch: Former Adobe CTO
Luca Maestri: CFO; formerly CFO of Xerox and Nokia Siemens
Andrew McCarthy: Formerly top mobile payments executive for J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
Catherine Monier: President YSL Europe and Wholesale Director Worldwide
Divya Nag: Co-founder of Stem-Cell Theranostics; participant in StartX Med; experience in FDA approval
Ravi Narasimhan: Formerly Vice-President of Research and Development for Vital Connect
Michael O’Reilly: Formerly Chief Medical officer and Executive Vice President of Medical Affairs at Masimo
Ari Partinen: Formerly Lumia Photography lead at Nokia
Patrick Pruniaux: Formerly Head of Sales for Tag-Heuer
Dr. Roy J.E.M. Raymann: Formerly Philip’s Senior Scientist for Sleep Research
Ben Shaffer: Formerly Nike Research and Development head.
Anand Lal Shimpi: Digital Marketing Director, Apple; formerly the editor and publisher of AnandTech
Musa Tariq: Formerly Nike Senior Director, Social Media and Community; Social Media Chief for Burberry
Andre Romelle Young (Dr. Dre): Rapper and record producer; co-founder of Beats by Dre
Stephen Waydo: Formerly of C8 Medisensors
Todd Whitehurst: Formerly Vice President of Product Development, Senseonics
I have visions of Samsung product designers right now getting their work areas in order, design workstations and apps fully updated and ready, so that as soon as the camera zooms in on the new iWatch they can start scratching out the new original Samsung copycat iWatch.
I think they're going to be sitting there in awe for more than a few days trying to figure out what they can copy... and still make it even half the worth in functionality, let alone design and style... than the iWatch***
*** I'm still not convinced that it's going to be called that. But everything you've posted thus far I'm backing 100%.
NOTE: too bad it's not easier to see "up-votes" at a glance on this forum. Down votes for stupidity might also be an upgrade to the quality of the threads.
Comments
This is the first one I've seen with a compass. I hope that Apple's wrist-worn device will also contain a compass.
Okay, I should have been specific about that. And I actually think they will still be making watches, but the majority will be smart watches, because I believe they will partner or somehow acquire access to the electronics and software/ecosystems. They won't develop that stuff themselves, but they will move to smart watches. Its sort of analogous to physical keyboards on mobile phones. Here's why... The front of a mobile phone represents valuable real estate, that, over time, shifted to the highest value function of the phone. That being the display, which can serve both input and output tasks simultaneously. So the valuable real estate consumed by an element that served only an input function was taken over by an element that could serve more functions. This is the type of thinking, by the way, that goes into the design of something like the original iPhone. You think about such things in context of design.
The real estate represented by a person's wrist is a limited commodity. It can host a number of items until that real estate is consumed. 50 years ago, the items that consumed a person's wrist real estate were limited in comparison to today. A bracelet, a timepiece. Today, a bracelet, a timepiece (traditional watch that serves primarily as a time keeper and fashion statement), a fitness band, a smart watch. One of these modern options, the smart watch, completely and easily supplants the time keeping functionality of legacy watches. But , so far, they haven't supplanted the fashion utility of legacy watches. But that day is coming. When it arrives, a person will have a choice of how he or she wants to utilize the limited real estate of his or her wrist. If a smart watch can be designed as elegantly as a traditional luxury watch while providing swipe access to a virtually unlimited selection of faces (home screens) that offer the person the ability to better match a watch to his or her wardrobe, a whole generation of people will drop from consideration most, or all, legacy luxury watches. If the killer app isn't wardrobe matching, then there's an unlimited field of available functions and capabilities (biometric access to secure areas, payment capabilities, fitness and health tracking, and a universe of apps), any one of which could be the killer app that tips the balance for each individual. Mechanical and limited function watches will lose the battle for limited wrist real estate to their smart descendants. At this point those companies that currently create mechanical movement wrist-worn timepieces had better be making smart watches, or had better have found a new line of work.
What experience does Apple have with fashion? Are you kidding? Two words: Deneve, Ahrendts. Formerly CEOs of St. Laurent and Burberry, respectively, now working for Tim at Apple. Ahrendts, or Dame Ahrendts, OBE, is especially respected for how she turned Burberry around by increasing its revenues and earnings while bringing it upmarket. I wouldn't worry.
iWatch...iWait...but will iWant?
7th time’s the charm, as they say.
Oh, it'll work, on their usual clientele—once everybody knows what the real thing looks like. And remember, that's all most of them will know.
"Ours is half the price! And it has a quad-core processor!!"
(Would it say "3 disabled to save power" even in the fine print?)
I'll take one if it comes in Blue Steel.
‘Disabled’ would imply they care at all about the product. They’ll just take regular quad-core processors straight off the line that have three defective cores and drop them in it.
Like AMD did with its “tri-core” processors.
I was thinking they could copy Intel's strategy with the 486: sell the 486SX cheaper than the DX because the math coprocessor is disabled. Then, if you wanted to upgrade your computer, and it was one of the ones with a coprocessor socket right next to the CPU socket (which you also paid extra for), they'd sell you a "487" math coprocessor, which was just a 486DX. You'd plug it in, and it would disable your original CPU and take over its function.
(Can you tell I don't like Intel?)
I thought I was missing the point but it seems the watch is either going to be surprise is all with its feature set or will be focusing more on being a fashion item (or both!). I think there's certainly going to be an audience for both cases, although it won't be as revolutionary as the iPhone was at all. Unless I can zap planets and solar systems with it.
Can anyon
But but but but but NO ONE will buy it if you can’t watch your 4K movie on it!
Cut to LG releasing a watch with a 4K 1.3” display for that purpose alone.
probably some health related sensors and stuffs, which better performed with a device on your wrist, than a device in your pocket.
Why not all Black ?
But but but but but NO ONE will buy it if you can’t watch your 4K movie on it!
Cut to LG releasing a watch with a 4K 1.3” display for that purpose alone.
Maybe not 4K movies, but it will have to have some fun stuff on it though. If it's all serious stuff like health monitoring, not sure how well that will go down.
See the above quotes to quell your stage fright.... and at this point I think the following can be safely copied here, since it is required reading AFAIC. Thanks go to one of the OP's above that posted it first in a previous thread.
From Fortune, Philip Elmer-DeWitt's column: Look who's now working for Apple Inc.
Industrial designer Marc Newson is the latest in a long list of high-profile hires.
This list below was posted Thursday on Investor Village’s AAPL Sanity board by “centex” under the heading “Food for Thought.”
It’s largely based on the reporting of 9(2)5Mac’s Mark Gurman.
02 DAYS - 04 HOURS - 35 MINUTES -> Apple 3.0
I think they're going to be sitting there in awe for more than a few days trying to figure out what they can copy... and still make it even half the worth in functionality, let alone design and style... than the iWatch***
*** I'm still not convinced that it's going to be called that. But everything you've posted thus far I'm backing 100%.
NOTE: too bad it's not easier to see "up-votes" at a glance on this forum. Down votes for stupidity might also be an upgrade to the quality of the threads.
02 DAYS - 04 HOURS - 24 MINUTES -> Apple 3.0