A) industry watch thickness categories are not opinions to agree or disagree with. They just are. "5mm is thin" is simply true. "5mm is average" is simply false.
your opinion that the apple watch is too thick is of little merit when you don't know what is considered thick or thin.
The problem arises because there is no such thing as industry watch thickness categories, which you have pulled from your anus.
It's your opinion that 5mm is thin. It's my opinion that it's normal. Suggesting that I don't know what is considered thick or thin makes you sound like a very sad man.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
Quote:
The problem arises because there is no such thing as industry watch thickness categories, which you have pulled from your anus.
Those came from Fossil's website as an industry standard.
The problem arises because there is no such thing as industry watch thickness categories, which you have pulled from your anus.
It's your opinion that 5mm is thin. It's my opinion that it's normal. Suggesting that I don't know what is considered thick or thin makes you sound like a very sad man.
And yet every watch maker and every watch site ends up providing the same guidelines (+/- 1mm) on watch thickness despite your claim these categories don't exist.
It is the industry's opinion that 5mm is thin and not mine.
It's like you arguing there is no industry categories for laptops and 17mm is an average laptop because you own a MBA and that 24mm (the unibody MBP) is thick while 40mm desktop replacement/uber gamer laptops are just silly.
Stating that 17mm is average for laptops is as wrong as stating 5mm is average for men's watches.
I don't need to "suggest" that you don't know what is considered thick or thin. Your statements prove you do not.
I am countering your completely incorrect assertions with facts and links in case you confuse someone else.
The Apple watch dimensions are on the larger side of average in thickness and have average size faces for men. They are a little big for women but there are many women watches that are bigger.
The problem arises because there is no such thing as industry watch thickness categories, which you have pulled from your anus.
It's your opinion that 5mm is thin. It's my opinion that it's normal. Suggesting that I don't know what is considered thick or thin makes you sound like a very sad man.
And yet every watch maker and every watch site ends up providing the same guidelines (+/- 1mm) on watch thickness despite your claim these categories don't exist.
It is the industry's opinion that 5mm is thin and not mine.
You said it.
It's like you arguing there is no industry categories for laptops and 17mm is an average laptop because you own a MBA and that 24mm (the unibody MBP) is thick while 40mm desktop replacement/uber gamer laptops are just silly.
We're not talking about laptops, nor red herrings.
Stating that 17mm is average for laptops is as wrong as stating 5mm is average for men's watches.
See above.
I don't need to "suggest" that you don't know what is considered thick or thin. Your statements prove you do not.
I am countering your completely incorrect assertions with facts and links in case you confuse someone else.
You're certainly doing a fine job of digging yourself a deep hole.
The Apple watch dimensions are on the larger side of average in thickness and have average size faces for men. They are a little big for women but there are many women watches that are bigger.
You keep pretending your opinions are facts.
The ?Watch is much thicker than most watches.
The smaller watch is on the large size for a man and very large for a woman. The large watch is giant for a woman and very large for a man. Combined with the very thick design, you have two ?Watches that most people will find much too bulky.
Because they are facts. It is a fact that the industry says that 5mm watches are thin and not average. It is a fact that most watches are thicker than 5mm. It is a fact that many watches called "thin" by the watch industry is thicker than 5mm.
These are all fact easily confirmed by googling or simply following the links i provided.
The ?Watch is much thicker than most watches.
This is false. it is not "much" thicker given that it is within the average range for watches.
The smaller watch is on the large size for a man and very large for a woman. The large watch is giant for a woman and very large for a man. Combined with the very thick design, you have two ?Watches that most people will find much too bulky.
This is false. The smaller watch is on the lower end of average size (37-42mm) for mens watches and larger end for women (26mm-36mm). The larger watch is on the larger side for mens dress watches and average for sport watches and diver style watches. Still there are many dress watches that size or larger at the same or greater thickness. Given it IS a sport watch that can be dressier (if you pay for the stainless or gold) its sized reasonably.
So given that its an averaged sized mens watch most men will NOT find it too bulky.
Many women might find the apple watch bulky but its not stupendously large for a womens sport watch. The ladies Citizen Eco Drive Victoria Azarenka has a 48mm face. The ladies World Time is 39mm face and 11mm thickness. The apple watch will be considered a larger ladies sport watch but certainly not the largest.
Because they are facts. It is a fact that the industry says that 5mm watches are thin and not average. It is a fact that most watches are thicker than 5mm. It is a fact that many watches called "thin" by the watch industry is thicker than 5mm.
These are all fact easily confirmed by googling or simply following the links i provided.
The ?Watch is much thicker than most watches.
This is false. it is not "much" thicker given that it is within the average range for watches.
The smaller watch is on the large size for a man and very large for a woman. The large watch is giant for a woman and very large for a man. Combined with the very thick design, you have two ?Watches that most people will find much too bulky.
This is false. The smaller watch is on the lower end of average size (37-42mm) for mens watches and larger end for women (26mm-36mm). The larger watch is on the larger side for mens dress watches and average for sport watches and diver style watches. Still there are many dress watches that size or larger at the same or greater thickness. Given it IS a sport watch that can be dressier (if you pay for the stainless or gold) its sized reasonably.
So given that its an averaged sized mens watch most men will NOT find it too bulky.
Many women might find the apple watch bulky but its not stupendously large for a womens sport watch. The ladies Citizen Eco Drive Victoria Azarenka has a 48mm face. The ladies World Time is 39mm face and 11mm thickness. The apple watch will be considered a larger ladies sport watch but certainly not the largest.
Virtually no-one wears sports watches or divers watches. Indeed, not many people wear watches at all.
You're confused by the trend to bigger watches in recent years. However, that trend has arisen at a time when fewer and fewer people wear watches. In other words, these watches are catering to a specialist, niche audience of fitness freaks and extreme sports. That's fine, but if Apple wants to garner a wider audience, it needs to design a watch that will be acceptable to the general public, not just this niche.
Quite apart from anything, it will be an uphill struggle to persuade people to wear a watch at all. Even if Apple had designed the most attractive, nifty device that I could imagine, it would still raise the question, "Is this necessary?"
By definition, no-one is going to be looking at a watch screen for long. It's far from ideal having a screen on one side of your body. The iPhone, iPad and Mac all gain your undivided attention by being in the centre of your focus. A watch will never gain such attention, which condemns it to being a peripheral device.
The iPhone and iPad are too good! It seems to me that Apple have tried to make their watch do far too much, whilst at the same time missing some crucial functionality. The lack of GPS is a blow for fitness, as it forces one to carry the iPhone. Yes, some will get both, but many will decide there's no point.
Most advocates of the watch are putting forward the argument of convenience. The problem is that any time saved is negligible compared to whipping out your iPhone. And at a time when everyone is getting bigger screens, it seems perverse to suddenly get excited about a 1.5" screen. The bigger iPhone and iPad will only make that screen seem even tinier and harder to use.
You're confused by the trend to bigger watches in recent years. However, that trend has arisen at a time when fewer and fewer people wear watches. In other words, these watches are catering to a specialist, niche audience of fitness freaks and extreme sports.
All watches, not just sport watches, have trended bigger and it's not THAT recent but a decade old trend line.
Quite apart from anything, it will be an uphill struggle to persuade people to wear a watch at all. Even if Apple had designed the most attractive, nifty device that I could imagine, it would still raise the question, "Is this necessary?"
1.2B sales and $60B worth of revenue disagrees. I'm sure you think that's just "opinion" too.
And 663 million of those watches were sold with an average cost of $3.
Which has what to do with the incorrect assertion that not many people wear watched or the incorrect assertion that the watch market is in decline?
This is like complaining in 2007 that the phone market was largely dominated by dumb phones. So what?
If apple only takes 1% share as was their original phone goal that's 12M watches (half as many as all Swiss watch makers) at a $400 ASP and 60% margins.
That's $4.8B revenue and $2.88B gross profit.
If they take 10% of the total market share as they have the total mobile phone market they will dominate profitability in the watch world just like they do the phone world.
And 663 million of those watches were sold with an average cost of $3.
Which has what to do with the incorrect assertion that not many people wear watched or the incorrect assertion that the watch market is in decline?
My assertion was correct. Hardly anyone wears watches. Tim Cook himself said it in an interview recently. The watch market has been in decline for many years.
This is like complaining in 2007 that the phone market was largely dominated by dumb phones. So what?
The smartphone market before the iPhone was thriving.
If apple only takes 1% share as was their original phone goal that's 12M watches (half as many as all Swiss watch makers) at a $400 ASP and 60% margins.
Apple have never made anywhere near 60% margins on their mainstream products. Their margins are currently in the low 20s.
That's $4.8B revenue and $2.88B gross profit.
If they take 10% of the total market share as they have the total mobile phone market they will dominate profitability in the watch world just like they do the phone world.
Originally Posted by Benjamin FrostOriginally Posted by nht
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
And 663 million of those watches were sold with an average cost of $3.
Which has what to do with the incorrect assertion that not many people wear watched or the incorrect assertion that the watch market is in decline?
My assertion was correct. Hardly anyone wears watches. Tim Cook himself said it in an interview recently. The watch market has been in decline for many years.
This is like complaining in 2007 that the phone market was largely dominated by dumb phones. So what?
The smartphone market before the iPhone was thriving.
If apple only takes 1% share as was their original phone goal that's 12M watches (half as many as all Swiss watch makers) at a $400 ASP and 60% margins.
Apple have never made anywhere near 60% margins on their mainstream products. Their margins are currently in the low 20s.
That's $4.8B revenue and $2.88B gross profit.
If they take 10% of the total market share as they have the total mobile phone market they will dominate profitability in the watch world just like they do the phone world.
First, the industry statistics show that the industry has been growing since 2009.
Second, if hardly anyone wears watches how did they sell 1.2 BILLION in 2013?
Third, why on earth would you think Apple would want to enter a dying market? There's some sandbagging by Cook. It's just like Job's "People don't read anymore" statement in 2008 before launching iBooks in 2010.
Fourth, 60% margins is what the watch industry enjoys (overall anyway). If Apple "only" gets 40% that's still a sizable profit.
The ?Watch will start at $349. That will be for a smaller model aluminum watch with a glass crystal and rubber strap. What do you think a steel and sapphire or gold model will cost? It's not going to be $449 or $549. Many of these will likely sell for well over $1000. I think the ASP will be significantly higher than $400.
The ?Watch will start at $349. That will be for a smaller model aluminum watch with a glass crystal and rubber strap. What do you think a steel and sapphire or gold model will cost? It's not going to be $449 or $549. Many of these will likely sell for well over $1000. I think the ASP will be significantly higher than $400.
The ?Watch will start at $349. That will be for a smaller model aluminum watch with a glass crystal and rubber strap. What do you think a steel and sapphire or gold model will cost? It's not going to be $449 or $549. Many of these will likely sell for well over $1000. I think the ASP will be significantly higher than $400.
The $400 ASP is conservative. Anything above $400 or 1% share makes the apple watch even more significant a profit center.
Interesting device; I will be "watching" to see how this goes.
About the article - too many comparisons with Google and Android devices. Everyone knows about the Samsung Gear which debuted over 2 years ago, and that it's important for Apple to not appear to be copying earlier devices.
The Gear devices are indeed priced for a lower entry customer, and for a good reason. I own a TagHeuer watch with a sapphire crystal face very much like the one on the higher end Apple watches. I also paid a lot for it, and intend to keep it for very close to a lifetime. When Apple fields a high priced device like this, it is a delicate balancing act, because the device needs to give its wearer a return on that price in both daily value and time value. It must be useful for a long time. This means that Apple needs to commit to upgrading and supporting the device for a length of time that justifies the high price, either through decades of support or trade-in options for new devices that recognize the investment made in the earlier device.
If Apple (and I don't really doubt they will) has strong sales with the watch even at a high price point, it will mean strong profits through 2015 and likely 2016 as well.
One last point on the article. When Siri came out, Google voice search had been in existence for several months - it was not launched as a response to Siri. The ability to dictate texts and emails, and have plain English questions responded to was added to Android devices about 6 months prior to the launch of Siri. The difference was that the Android devices didn't give an audible response. They simply responded to voice input. Voice response has since been added, which is basically a text to speech engine reading the results of the search that is also displayed on the screen.
Comments
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Regardless, the ?Watch is much too thick.
Lol.
A) industry watch thickness categories are not opinions to agree or disagree with. They just are. "5mm is thin" is simply true. "5mm is average" is simply false.
The problem arises because there is no such thing as industry watch thickness categories, which you have pulled from your anus.
It's your opinion that 5mm is thin. It's my opinion that it's normal. Suggesting that I don't know what is considered thick or thin makes you sound like a very sad man.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
Those came from Fossil's website as an industry standard.
http://www.fossil.com/wcsstore/Fossil/html/en_US/sizeguide/watches.html
and are reflected in several other websites
http://www.moraysjewelers.com/timepiece-sizing.htm
http://www.watchstation.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?storeId=34054&page=customerCare_sizeCharts&nav=leftNav_CustomerCare&catalogId=23503&langId=-1
http://www.overstock.com/downloads/pdf/watch-sizing-guide.pdf
i was un-aware that I kept the Fossil corporation in my anus.
:P
And yet every watch maker and every watch site ends up providing the same guidelines (+/- 1mm) on watch thickness despite your claim these categories don't exist.
It is the industry's opinion that 5mm is thin and not mine.
It's like you arguing there is no industry categories for laptops and 17mm is an average laptop because you own a MBA and that 24mm (the unibody MBP) is thick while 40mm desktop replacement/uber gamer laptops are just silly.
Stating that 17mm is average for laptops is as wrong as stating 5mm is average for men's watches.
I don't need to "suggest" that you don't know what is considered thick or thin. Your statements prove you do not.
I am countering your completely incorrect assertions with facts and links in case you confuse someone else.
The Apple watch dimensions are on the larger side of average in thickness and have average size faces for men. They are a little big for women but there are many women watches that are bigger.
You keep pretending your opinions are facts.
The ?Watch is much thicker than most watches.
The smaller watch is on the large size for a man and very large for a woman. The large watch is giant for a woman and very large for a man. Combined with the very thick design, you have two ?Watches that most people will find much too bulky.
Because they are facts. It is a fact that the industry says that 5mm watches are thin and not average. It is a fact that most watches are thicker than 5mm. It is a fact that many watches called "thin" by the watch industry is thicker than 5mm.
These are all fact easily confirmed by googling or simply following the links i provided.
This is false. it is not "much" thicker given that it is within the average range for watches.
This is false. The smaller watch is on the lower end of average size (37-42mm) for mens watches and larger end for women (26mm-36mm). The larger watch is on the larger side for mens dress watches and average for sport watches and diver style watches. Still there are many dress watches that size or larger at the same or greater thickness. Given it IS a sport watch that can be dressier (if you pay for the stainless or gold) its sized reasonably.
So given that its an averaged sized mens watch most men will NOT find it too bulky.
Many women might find the apple watch bulky but its not stupendously large for a womens sport watch. The ladies Citizen Eco Drive Victoria Azarenka has a 48mm face. The ladies World Time is 39mm face and 11mm thickness. The apple watch will be considered a larger ladies sport watch but certainly not the largest.
Virtually no-one wears sports watches or divers watches. Indeed, not many people wear watches at all.
You're confused by the trend to bigger watches in recent years. However, that trend has arisen at a time when fewer and fewer people wear watches. In other words, these watches are catering to a specialist, niche audience of fitness freaks and extreme sports. That's fine, but if Apple wants to garner a wider audience, it needs to design a watch that will be acceptable to the general public, not just this niche.
Quite apart from anything, it will be an uphill struggle to persuade people to wear a watch at all. Even if Apple had designed the most attractive, nifty device that I could imagine, it would still raise the question, "Is this necessary?"
By definition, no-one is going to be looking at a watch screen for long. It's far from ideal having a screen on one side of your body. The iPhone, iPad and Mac all gain your undivided attention by being in the centre of your focus. A watch will never gain such attention, which condemns it to being a peripheral device.
The iPhone and iPad are too good! It seems to me that Apple have tried to make their watch do far too much, whilst at the same time missing some crucial functionality. The lack of GPS is a blow for fitness, as it forces one to carry the iPhone. Yes, some will get both, but many will decide there's no point.
Most advocates of the watch are putting forward the argument of convenience. The problem is that any time saved is negligible compared to whipping out your iPhone. And at a time when everyone is getting bigger screens, it seems perverse to suddenly get excited about a 1.5" screen. The bigger iPhone and iPad will only make that screen seem even tinier and harder to use.
Lol. Still spouting stuff without checking are we?
1.2 billion watches were sold in 2013. Swatch's revenue was $8.8B. Rolex's was $4.5B.
That's a lot of watches sold for "not many people" to wear.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistics/
US sales were $7.2B in 2012 and up since the 2009 low.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-watchs-time-isnt-up-2013-07-01
The GPS sports watch category was estimated to grow to $1B in 2013.
The global watch market was $60B.
http://fortune.com/2013/03/04/how-big-might-the-market-be-for-an-apple-smart-watch/
All watches, not just sport watches, have trended bigger and it's not THAT recent but a decade old trend line.
1.2B sales and $60B worth of revenue disagrees. I'm sure you think that's just "opinion" too.
Virtually no-one wears sports watches or divers watches. Indeed, not many people wear watches at all.
1.2 billion watches were sold in 2013. Swatch's revenue was $8.8B. Rolex's was $4.5B.
And 663 million of those watches were sold with an average cost of $3.
Which has what to do with the incorrect assertion that not many people wear watched or the incorrect assertion that the watch market is in decline?
This is like complaining in 2007 that the phone market was largely dominated by dumb phones. So what?
If apple only takes 1% share as was their original phone goal that's 12M watches (half as many as all Swiss watch makers) at a $400 ASP and 60% margins.
That's $4.8B revenue and $2.88B gross profit.
If they take 10% of the total market share as they have the total mobile phone market they will dominate profitability in the watch world just like they do the phone world.
And 663 million of those watches were sold with an average cost of $3.
Which has what to do with the incorrect assertion that not many people wear watched or the incorrect assertion that the watch market is in decline?
My assertion was correct. Hardly anyone wears watches. Tim Cook himself said it in an interview recently. The watch market has been in decline for many years.
This is like complaining in 2007 that the phone market was largely dominated by dumb phones. So what?
The smartphone market before the iPhone was thriving.
If apple only takes 1% share as was their original phone goal that's 12M watches (half as many as all Swiss watch makers) at a $400 ASP and 60% margins.
Apple have never made anywhere near 60% margins on their mainstream products. Their margins are currently in the low 20s.
That's $4.8B revenue and $2.88B gross profit.
If they take 10% of the total market share as they have the total mobile phone market they will dominate profitability in the watch world just like they do the phone world.
And 663 million of those watches were sold with an average cost of $3.
Which has what to do with the incorrect assertion that not many people wear watched or the incorrect assertion that the watch market is in decline?
My assertion was correct. Hardly anyone wears watches. Tim Cook himself said it in an interview recently. The watch market has been in decline for many years.
This is like complaining in 2007 that the phone market was largely dominated by dumb phones. So what?
The smartphone market before the iPhone was thriving.
If apple only takes 1% share as was their original phone goal that's 12M watches (half as many as all Swiss watch makers) at a $400 ASP and 60% margins.
Apple have never made anywhere near 60% margins on their mainstream products. Their margins are currently in the low 20s.
That's $4.8B revenue and $2.88B gross profit.
If they take 10% of the total market share as they have the total mobile phone market they will dominate profitability in the watch world just like they do the phone world.
First, the industry statistics show that the industry has been growing since 2009.
Second, if hardly anyone wears watches how did they sell 1.2 BILLION in 2013?
Third, why on earth would you think Apple would want to enter a dying market? There's some sandbagging by Cook. It's just like Job's "People don't read anymore" statement in 2008 before launching iBooks in 2010.
Fourth, 60% margins is what the watch industry enjoys (overall anyway). If Apple "only" gets 40% that's still a sizable profit.
"...at a $400 ASP..."
The ?Watch will start at $349. That will be for a smaller model aluminum watch with a glass crystal and rubber strap. What do you think a steel and sapphire or gold model will cost? It's not going to be $449 or $549. Many of these will likely sell for well over $1000. I think the ASP will be significantly higher than $400.
That was nht you're correcting, not me.
That was nht you're correcting, not me.
Whoops, my bad.
Lefties can use it: The software can rotate 180 degrees.
Only difference is digital crown will be below 2nd button for lefties.
.
The $400 ASP is conservative. Anything above $400 or 1% share makes the apple watch even more significant a profit center.
Interesting device; I will be "watching" to see how this goes.
About the article - too many comparisons with Google and Android devices. Everyone knows about the Samsung Gear which debuted over 2 years ago, and that it's important for Apple to not appear to be copying earlier devices.
The Gear devices are indeed priced for a lower entry customer, and for a good reason. I own a TagHeuer watch with a sapphire crystal face very much like the one on the higher end Apple watches. I also paid a lot for it, and intend to keep it for very close to a lifetime. When Apple fields a high priced device like this, it is a delicate balancing act, because the device needs to give its wearer a return on that price in both daily value and time value. It must be useful for a long time. This means that Apple needs to commit to upgrading and supporting the device for a length of time that justifies the high price, either through decades of support or trade-in options for new devices that recognize the investment made in the earlier device.
If Apple (and I don't really doubt they will) has strong sales with the watch even at a high price point, it will mean strong profits through 2015 and likely 2016 as well.
One last point on the article. When Siri came out, Google voice search had been in existence for several months - it was not launched as a response to Siri. The ability to dictate texts and emails, and have plain English questions responded to was added to Android devices about 6 months prior to the launch of Siri. The difference was that the Android devices didn't give an audible response. They simply responded to voice input. Voice response has since been added, which is basically a text to speech engine reading the results of the search that is also displayed on the screen.
I didn't see it in the article...what is battery life like?