Jony Ive confirms Apple Watch three years in the making as designer's media blitz continues

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 174
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Ive is extremely overrated. Steve would reign him in. It's been well documented how he's stolen extensively from the house of Braun and Leica most successfully.

    so much ignorance. you have no idea what Jobs would do, since you didn't know him and I'd wager have never even been in the same room as the man.

    as for dieter Rams, he's stated hes a big fan of Ive's work on many occasions as they follow the same principles. rent Objectified.
  • Reply 142 of 174
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    AppleWatch has been three years in the making and still no consumer has one.  Samsung must already offer about six smartwatches in only a year's time.  I'm not criticizing Apple as quantity doesn't mean much.  It's just an observation.  I suppose Apple must be spending a lot of time trying to get AppleWatch right on the first shot.

    ya think? not like they've explained time and time again during every other release that that's how they roll...
  • Reply 143 of 174
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    No orneriness emanating from me.

    The reason Jobs said that about the stylus was because as soon as you introduce two different modes of using the interface, you confuse the user and lessen the optimisation of the interface.

    The splendid thing about the iPhone was its simple interface. One finger, one touch, that's it. Nothing else. What could be simpler? Everyone immediately knows how to use an iPhone.

    Ive had the choice to do this for the ?Watch, but he spurned it. Having multiple ways of manipulating the interface leads to mediocrity. By way of example, look at Microsoft's awful attempt at the hybrid Surface. There, you have an interface that is optimal for neither a tablet nor a laptop.

    So instead of applying the same great touch interface of the iPhone which could be picked up with no thought, an extra method has to be learnt that is detached from the screen. I think there are good technical reasons why Ive couldn't use the same technology, to be sure, but the result is a fiddly solution that repels user engagement and distracts the user's focus.

    Dear lord, how the F can you qualified to critique something you've never even seen, let alone used? The arrogance.

    What you're overlooking in your stylus argument is context. In the context of a smartphone, a finger is the preferred device and a stylus is blowing it. Obviously that may have nothing to do within the context of a different device, which has a different form factor and use cases.

    Do you really need that spelled out for you? Amazing.
  • Reply 144 of 174
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    No orneriness emanating from me.



    The reason Jobs said that about the stylus was because as soon as you introduce two different modes of using the interface, you confuse the user and lessen the optimisation of the interface.



    The splendid thing about the iPhone was its simple interface. One finger, one touch, that's it. Nothing else. What could be simpler? Everyone immediately knows how to use an iPhone.



    Ive had the choice to do this for the ?Watch, but he spurned it. Having multiple ways of manipulating the interface leads to mediocrity. By way of example, look at Microsoft's awful attempt at the hybrid Surface. There, you have an interface that is optimal for neither a tablet nor a laptop.



    So instead of applying the same great touch interface of the iPhone which could be picked up with no thought, an extra method has to be learnt that is detached from the screen. I think there are good technical reasons why Ive couldn't use the same technology, to be sure, but the result is a fiddly solution that repels user engagement and distracts the user's focus.

     

    I'm sorry, but I think you're completely misreading Jobs' stylus comment.  (Ever feel like we're biblical scholars trying to discern truth from a mystical text?  Yeah, me neither.)  Why should anyone have to pick up a stick to push a button or move things around on a screen?  That's all the stylus comment meant.  It has nothing to do with multiple ways of doing things, it just a complaint about stupid ways of doing things.

     

    I expect that Jobs' would be very impressed with the Apple Watch crown scroll thingie.  To me it makes perfect sense to have a way to interact with the screen without--you know--covering the entire screen with you finger.  And an analog-like input device can be very tactilely satisfying.  As a kid I had a stereo that was so cool because the volume was controlled by two buttons rather than a knob (this was nearly 40 years ago before that was common).  It didn't take long to realize that a rotating a large knob is a much better interface, giving the user much finer grained control and responsiveness.  It's not a perfect analogy, but I have no doubt that, done right, being able to control key features by rotating the crown with one finger will provide a great intuitive and responsive user experience.  If, like on most actual watches where the crown is used infrequently, it is difficult to manipulate and requires to finger, it will be a major fail (as the kids say).  But it's won't be used that way.  It will be essentially like having a zone on the right (or left) side of the watch where you can swipe vertically--without the wasted screen space that that would require.

     

    But this is silly.  None of us has touched or even seen an Apple Watch in person, so who are we to judge the effective of the controls.  This would be like us bashing the first iPod because "obviously that weird control wheel doesn't make any sense."

     

    The Apple Watch will be a success or failure based on the user experience.  They created a whole new visual interface and decided that adding the crown made sense.  Given their success with Mac OS, the iPod OS, and iOS, their earned the benefit of the doubt from me.  And based on everything I see on the Apple site, I actually have no doubts.

  • Reply 145 of 174
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,462member
    The first day of sales will be greeted with the inevitable video of the destruction of an Apple Watch using a cindercrete block.

    Or getting too wet to work on Steve Balmer's profusely sweating wrist ...
  • Reply 146 of 174
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,462member
    malax wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I think you're completely misreading Jobs' stylus comment.  (Ever feel like we're biblical scholars trying to discern truth from a mystical text?  Yeah, me neither.)  Why should anyone have to pick up a stick to push a button or move things around on a screen?  That's all the stylus comment meant.  It has nothing to do with multiple ways of doing things, it just a complaint about stupid ways of doing things.

    I expect that Jobs' would be very impressed with the Apple Watch crown scroll thingie.  To me it makes perfect sense to have a way to interact with the screen without--you know--covering the entire screen with you finger.  And an analog-like input device can be very tactilely satisfying.  As a kid I had a stereo that was so cool because the volume was controlled by two buttons rather than a knob (this was nearly 40 years ago before that was common).  It didn't take long to realize that a rotating a large knob is a much better interface, giving the user much finer grained control and responsiveness.  It's not a perfect analogy, but I have no doubt that, done right, being able to control key features by rotating the crown with one finger will provide a great intuitive and responsive user experience.  If, like on most actual watches where the crown is used infrequently, it is difficult to manipulate and requires to finger, it will be a major fail (as the kids say).  But it's won't be used that way.  It will be essentially like having a zone on the right (or left) side of the watch where you can swipe vertically--without the wasted screen space that that would require.

    But this is silly.  None of us has touched or even seen an Apple Watch in person, so who are we to judge the effective of the controls.  This would be like us bashing the first iPod because "obviously that weird control wheel doesn't make any sense."

    The Apple Watch will be a success or failure based on the user experience.  They created a whole new visual interface and decided that adding the crown made sense.  Given their success with Mac OS, the iPod OS, and iOS, their earned the benefit of the doubt from me.  And based on everything I see on the Apple site, I actually have no doubts.

    Excellent post.
  • Reply 147 of 174
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,462member
    mstone wrote: »
    I may not be able to post again any time  soon as I am going into surgery for pulmonary  thrombosis. If I don't make it, I wish you all well.

    OMG ... get well soon!
  • Reply 148 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    Or getting too wet to work on Steve Balmer's profusely sweating wrist ...

     

    I wonder if Ol' Steveo still likes his plan going forward.

  • Reply 149 of 174
    vvswarupvvswarup Posts: 330member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    No orneriness emanating from me.



    The reason Jobs said that about the stylus was because as soon as you introduce two different modes of using the interface, you confuse the user and lessen the optimisation of the interface.



    The splendid thing about the iPhone was its simple interface. One finger, one touch, that's it. Nothing else. What could be simpler? Everyone immediately knows how to use an iPhone.



    Ive had the choice to do this for the ?Watch, but he spurned it. Having multiple ways of manipulating the interface leads to mediocrity. By way of example, look at Microsoft's awful attempt at the hybrid Surface. There, you have an interface that is optimal for neither a tablet nor a laptop.



    So instead of applying the same great touch interface of the iPhone which could be picked up with no thought, an extra method has to be learnt that is detached from the screen. I think there are good technical reasons why Ive couldn't use the same technology, to be sure, but the result is a fiddly solution that repels user engagement and distracts the user's focus.



     

    Why don't you educate us on how you would solve the problem of interacting with a display as small as that of a smart watch? 

  • Reply 150 of 174
    vvswarup wrote: »
    No orneriness emanating from me.


    The reason Jobs said that about the stylus was because as soon as you introduce two different modes of using the interface, you confuse the user and lessen the optimisation of the interface.


    The splendid thing about the iPhone was its simple interface. One finger, one touch, that's it. Nothing else. What could be simpler? Everyone immediately knows how to use an iPhone.


    Ive had the choice to do this for the ?Watch, but he spurned it. Having multiple ways of manipulating the interface leads to mediocrity. By way of example, look at Microsoft's awful attempt at the hybrid Surface. There, you have an interface that is optimal for neither a tablet nor a laptop.


    So instead of applying the same great touch interface of the iPhone which could be picked up with no thought, an extra method has to be learnt that is detached from the screen. I think there are good technical reasons why Ive couldn't use the same technology, to be sure, but the result is a fiddly solution that repels user engagement and distracts the user's focus.
    [CONTENTEMBED=/t/182618/jony-ive-confirms-apple-watch-three-years-in-the-making-as-designers-media-blitz-continues/120#post_2611612 layout=inline] [/CONTENTEMBED]
    Why don't you educate us on how you would solve the problem of interacting with a display as small as that of a smart watch? 

    By not making it in the first place.

    Problem solved.
  • Reply 151 of 174
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post



    Three years to design a $350 iPhone accessory that sits on your wrist so that people don't have to go to all the trouble of taking their iPhone out of their pocket to look at it? I guess this is what passes for "innovation" in the post-Steve era.



    When you read this thread from 2001 on the introduction of the iPod you will find it filled with the most risible posts very similar to yours. For example this one "If Apple does something like this again is going down."

  • Reply 152 of 174
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    By not making it in the first place.



    Problem solved.



    Q: How to solve the problem of landing an object on a comet 500 million kilometres away.

    A: Don't do it. Problem solved.

     

    I think you're onto something here, we can solve all the world problems with this one simple solution. Jonny Ive would like that.

  • Reply 153 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    What these guys do is to make remarks without having the slightest idea of what they're talking about. They read some small thing somewhere that has no detail, or references to anything, and then state it here, knowing that it will annoy people. When the errors are pointed out, they ignore them in their responses, and go on about other things. Lazuli has been consistant about this. He ignores the points I make and blathers on about something else.



    As far as Rams is concerned, there was an interview with him that I bookmarked some time ago. Lets see how he feels about Ivy and Apple.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-Rams-Apple-has-achieved-something-I-never-did.html

     

    They know exactly what they are talking about. They deliberately try to come up with ways to get under people's skin. They don't have conversations because they never intend to have an actual conversation. They just spin negativity towards Apple and derail threads, such as this one. They have been doing this for so long. It is so obvious and blatant. Can you please tell me why these trolls are not banned? Why are they allowed to rack up their post count with bullshit, so that they seem credible to people who don't follow there threads regularly (who then respond to them without knowing that there is no point)? It seems ridiculous to give people carte blanche so long as no ad hominems are used. 

  • Reply 154 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    By not making it in the first place.



    Problem solved.

     

    I'm unclear about your position on the Apple Watch. Please post more about your opinion regarding this unreleased product. Thank you.

  • Reply 155 of 174
    By not making it in the first place.


    Problem solved.

    I'm unclear about your position on the Apple Watch. Please post more about your opinion regarding this unreleased product. Thank you.

    I believe it's a flawed concept and will be Apple's biggest failure, sadly, since the Newton. Maybe in several years' time it could succeed, but it seems to be ahead of its time technologically.
  • Reply 156 of 174
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,511member
    The only true test for the Apple Watch will be in its second iteration...what will stay, what will go.
  • Reply 157 of 174
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    The only true test for the Apple Watch will be in its second iteration...what will stay, what will go.

    It'll be interesting to see how they make a compelling upgrade. With products like the Mac, iPad, iPhone, they can always fall back on design changes or performance boosts. The Watch size doesn't give much room to change the design and performance doesn't really matter because it doesn't do anything that needs it.

    It has very little appeal to begin with because they are selling to people who already have iPhones (it requires the phone). The upgrade cycles will be very long, I doubt people will buy more than once every 5 years. Even then, what would initial buyers upgrade for? It has a sharp, OLED display already, it has all the sensors so it would really just be for better battery life. I suppose they'll be able to make it more compact.

    The entire watch market is $56b and more than half goes to Switzerland. The number of watches is around 1.2b units per year so ~$46 average per watch but that average doesn't tell the whole story because if you split Switzerland out, they sell about 29m watches for their part so the average selling price for non-Swiss watches would be almost half. On Amazon, there are a lot of reviews for cheaper watches:

    http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Polo-Assn-Sport-US9061/dp/B008D902Q2
    http://www.amazon.com/Seiko-SNK809-Automatic-Watch-Canvas/dp/B002SSUQFG
    http://www.amazon.com/Casio-DW5600E-1V-G-Shock-Classic-Digital/dp/B000GAYQKY

    About 1,000 reviews each. There are 791 reviews for this $11 watch:

    http://www.amazon.com/Casio-F91W-1-Classic-Resin-Digital/dp/B000GAWSDG

    1152 reviews for this $16 monstrosity:

    http://www.amazon.com/Timex-Womens-T5K459-Digital-Translucent/dp/B003QFXP3U

    That's the high volume market there. The market for $100-400 looks to be around 1/10th the size.

    Say that 90% of watches sold are below $100, 10% around $100-1000 and <1% above $1000 (this actually brings the average out too high so the weighting is even further towards lower prices) - Apple would be aiming at the 10% of 1.2b watches = 120m units.

    Only the portion of those watch buyers who have iPhones will be able to use an Apple Watch and Apple's share is about 1:2 vs Android so that brings the potential buyers down to 40m units. Out of those buyers, how many want a digital Watch vs analog, how many want to pay over $350, how many like Apple's design? I think you get a very small potential market. It may still be a lucrative enough business though. Say they manage 10-20m units per year at an ASP of $450 = $6.75b at 30% margin = $2b profit on top of around $40b. It could mean 5% profit growth and it's more profit than the Apple TV and the iPod line just now.
  • Reply 158 of 174
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,612member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    ...As far as Rams is concerned, there was an interview with him that I bookmarked some time ago. Lets see how he feels about Ivy and Apple.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-Rams-Apple-has-achieved-something-I-never-did.html

    'Gestalt-Ingenieur' is a title but also such a term of endearment, doubtless appropriate to Ive. 

  • Reply 159 of 174
    Marvin wrote: »
    The only true test for the Apple Watch will be in its second iteration...what will stay, what will go.

    It'll be interesting to see how they make a compelling upgrade. With products like the Mac, iPad, iPhone, they can always fall back on design changes or performance boosts. The Watch size doesn't give much room to change the design and performance doesn't really matter because it doesn't do anything that needs it.

    It has very little appeal to begin with because they are selling to people who already have iPhones (it requires the phone). The upgrade cycles will be very long, I doubt people will buy more than once every 5 years. Even then, what would initial buyers upgrade for? It has a sharp, OLED display already, it has all the sensors so it would really just be for better battery life. I suppose they'll be able to make it more compact.

    The entire watch market is $56b and more than half goes to Switzerland. The number of watches is around 1.2b units per year so ~$46 average per watch but that average doesn't tell the whole story because if you split Switzerland out, they sell about 29m watches for their part so the average selling price for non-Swiss watches would be almost half. On Amazon, there are a lot of reviews for cheaper watches:

    http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Polo-Assn-Sport-US9061/dp/B008D902Q2
    http://www.amazon.com/Seiko-SNK809-Automatic-Watch-Canvas/dp/B002SSUQFG
    http://www.amazon.com/Casio-DW5600E-1V-G-Shock-Classic-Digital/dp/B000GAYQKY

    About 1,000 reviews each. There are 791 reviews for this $11 watch:

    http://www.amazon.com/Casio-F91W-1-Classic-Resin-Digital/dp/B000GAWSDG

    1152 reviews for this $16 monstrosity:

    http://www.amazon.com/Timex-Womens-T5K459-Digital-Translucent/dp/B003QFXP3U

    That's the high volume market there. The market for $100-400 looks to be around 1/10th the size.

    Say that 90% of watches sold are below $100, 10% around $100-1000 and <1% above $1000 (this actually brings the average out too high so the weighting is even further towards lower prices) - Apple would be aiming at the 10% of 1.2b watches = 120m units.

    Only the portion of those watch buyers who have iPhones will be able to use an Apple Watch and Apple's share is about 1:2 vs Android so that brings the potential buyers down to 40m units. Out of those buyers, how many want a digital Watch vs analog, how many want to pay over $350, how many like Apple's design? I think you get a very small potential market. It may still be a lucrative enough business though. Say they manage 10-20m units per year at an ASP of $450 = $6.75b at 30% margin = $2b profit on top of around $40b. It could mean 5% profit growth and it's more profit than the Apple TV and the iPod line just now.

    Good post as usual.

    For all the doom and gloom that I predict for the iWatch, it may settle into a happy niche and provide a nice little profit as you suggest. My worry is that it will consume a disproportionate amount of resources, time and focus and lead to slips in other more important areas.

    Every time I think of its introduction, I feel myself staring into the abyss. Some new detail reveals another negative. For instance, the watch was never demoed in its natural environment worn on the wrist. It was simply held in two hands, like an iPad or iPhone.

    Yet more bad thoughts about the crown: it's going to be a pain to use. No-one uses a crown on a watch other than very sparingly because it's awkward. In fact, it's easier to take the watch off to use them. No doubt Apple's will be slicker and easier, but I still can't see it being pleasant. I don't like its position at the side; it would be better in the centre, not high up.
  • Reply 160 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    It'll be interesting to see how they make a compelling upgrade. With products like the Mac, iPad, iPhone, they can always fall back on design changes or performance boosts. The Watch size doesn't give much room to change the design and performance doesn't really matter because it doesn't do anything that needs it.



    It has very little appeal to begin with because they are selling to people who already have iPhones (it requires the phone). The upgrade cycles will be very long, I doubt people will buy more than once every 5 years. Even then, what would initial buyers upgrade for? It has a sharp, OLED display already, it has all the sensors so it would really just be for better battery life. I suppose they'll be able to make it more compact.



    The entire watch market is $56b and more than half goes to Switzerland. The number of watches is around 1.2b units per year so ~$46 average per watch but that average doesn't tell the whole story because if you split Switzerland out, they sell about 29m watches for their part so the average selling price for non-Swiss watches would be almost half. On Amazon, there are a lot of reviews for cheaper watches:



    http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Polo-Assn-Sport-US9061/dp/B008D902Q2

    http://www.amazon.com/Seiko-SNK809-Automatic-Watch-Canvas/dp/B002SSUQFG

    http://www.amazon.com/Casio-DW5600E-1V-G-Shock-Classic-Digital/dp/B000GAYQKY



    About 1,000 reviews each. There are 791 reviews for this $11 watch:



    http://www.amazon.com/Casio-F91W-1-Classic-Resin-Digital/dp/B000GAWSDG



    1152 reviews for this $16 monstrosity:



    http://www.amazon.com/Timex-Womens-T5K459-Digital-Translucent/dp/B003QFXP3U



    That's the high volume market there. The market for $100-400 looks to be around 1/10th the size.



    Say that 90% of watches sold are below $100, 10% around $100-1000 and <1% above $1000 (this actually brings the average out too high so the weighting is even further towards lower prices) - Apple would be aiming at the 10% of 1.2b watches = 120m units.



    Only the portion of those watch buyers who have iPhones will be able to use an Apple Watch and Apple's share is about 1:2 vs Android so that brings the potential buyers down to 40m units. Out of those buyers, how many want a digital Watch vs analog, how many want to pay over $350, how many like Apple's design? I think you get a very small potential market. It may still be a lucrative enough business though. Say they manage 10-20m units per year at an ASP of $450 = $6.75b at 30% margin = $2b profit on top of around $40b. It could mean 5% profit growth and it's more profit than the Apple TV and the iPod line just now.

     

    Interesting analysis. I think we've all been spoiled by the immense success of the iPhone, and to some extent the iPad. There's likely nothing that Apple could ever produce in the future that would even approximate that success. There will invariably be a lot of ecosystem enhancements that won't bring in as much revenue, but will greatly enhance the Apple experience (e.g. Car Play, Apple Watch, Apple TV). However, I think your analysis is a bit too pessimistic:

     

    1) I think Apple will expand the market and demand for a watch, leading to some bigger estimates. (I've never cared about wearing a watch before, but I'm chomping at the bit for an Apple Watch).

     

    2) The halo effect will bring more people into the iPhone/Apple ecosystem, thus adding to its value.

     

    3) I think that the bands and accessories may bring in even more revenue and profit for Apple than the watches themselves, both from Apple made bands as well as Made for Apple Watch licensed bands.

Sign In or Register to comment.