It will be fun asking all the employees wearing them to show me something it can do besides tell time and not need a magnifying glass to see it.
Ellen Degeneres will have a field day.
He's excited that Apple may finally have a dud product despite his many years of predicting its demise. Nothing would make him happier than to say, "I told you so. Apple just got lucky, " or "Apple can't survive without Steve. It's all downhill from here."
He's excited that Apple may finally have a dud product despite his many years of predicting its demise. Nothing would make him happier than to say, "I told you so. Apple just got lucky, " or "Apple can't survive without Steve. It's all downhill from here."
Umm I would get a refund on that mind reading app you use because it's obviously wrong. And stop with the misrepresentations already as I've Never predicted Apple's demise. Point us all one quote.
If?! Why not do even a modicum of research before you make a silly conditional comment about whether it will be able to tell time.
Research. Easy. Just look at the specs on the Apple site. Done. Runs only one day requiring recharging; my current Timex watch runs 12 months before I have to change the battery. I wear my Timex 24x7; Apple Watch has to be taken off to charge every day. I wear my Timex in the shower; iWatch not waterproof. I wear my Timex while swimming and is good down to 50m; iWatch not water proof -- maybe it can handle getting rained on. My Timex cost me $40 about 6 years ago, replacement bands have cost me $60 over the years, plus replacement batteries; iWatch starts at 4x the amount I've spent for 6 years.
I buy products for their functionality and usability first and durability a close second; attractiveness and style is important also. Apple wins hands down for their current hardware. iWatch specs currently published don't come close to the functionality that would attract me at any price. I this point, I wouldn't wear the iWatch if it was given to me for free.
Perhaps you're correct …. It appears that the Apple Watch will only be useful to someone with a pulse rate!
He's excited that Apple may finally have a dud product despite his many years of predicting its demise. Nothing would make him happier than to say, "I told you so. Apple just got lucky, " or "Apple can't survive without Steve. It's all downhill from here."
Umm I would get a refund on that mind reading app you use because it's obviously wrong. And stop with the misrepresentations already as I've Never predicted Apple's demise.
My mid reading app gave me the same reading. Could it be that you don't know what you're thinking??
... history has proven that people will pay for convenience.
Absolutely, ever since the TV dinner which had a production estimate of 5,000 dinners for the first year. Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production.
Last 8 quarters = 39.27m+35.2m+43.72m+51.03m+33.8m+31.24m+37.42m+47.79m = 319.47 millions units
Seems pretty on the money for me, with all but the most recent figure being an actual sales report.
What's half a mil plus change among friends
I used the same chart, but just eyeballed the the graph bars to average out to ~ 40 mil units per quarter ... Actually, I assumed a pretty big CYQ4 would cover any shortfall!
Perhaps you're correct …. It appears that the Apple Watch will only be useful to someone with a pulse rate!
If the iWatch is incapable of performing real world use as a watch, it will not be capable of performing all the other functions it was supposedly designed to do. Say the function is as an alarm -- a haptic function that is supposed to be present. Well, if the watch is sitting bedside charging overnight, the haptic functionality isn't going to work. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. One useful function of a well-designed watch might be to monitor your sleep cycle and have the alarm go off in REM (the lightest sleep phase). Can't do that function either.
If you want to see a watch which, though more limited in functionality, is superior to the iWatch in that what it does it does very well. The Withings Activite` has Blue Tooth, haptic alarm, sapphire glass, good in the water up to 5 ATM (about 132 ft), a battery that lasts 8 months to a year, and is a fitness tracker including swimming fitness tracker.
Current specs from Apple doesn't show that the iWatch compares favorably to the Activite`.
One thing Apple was supposedly good at was only attempting to do what it could do well -- the hardest part was deciding what features NOT to do. Here, the iWatch specs shows it is trying to either do too much, or is too enamored with style over substance. Basically Withings beat Apple at it's own game.
Who is seriously expecting ?Watch to sell in iPhone like figures?
The iPhone sold about 6 million units in its first year, the iPad sold 15 million. Some people have put up expectations of 20 million units for the Watch in its first year and some expect it to scale to tens of billions in revenue. There was an article about 30-40m components orders:
The entire watch industry is about $40-45b. At an ASP of $450, 88m Apple Watch units would make as much revenue as the entire watch industry and this is less than half the number of iPhones sold every year now.
I doubt it will get anywhere near that but I think it's possible for yearly sales to get to around 10-20 million units or so (2.5-5% of compatible iPhone owners), which would be $4.5-9b revenue per year. First year sales, I expect to be below 10 million units but I'd only say it was unsuccessful if it was below 2 million units.
Who is seriously expecting ?Watch to sell in iPhone like figures?
The iPhone sold about 6 million units in its first year, the iPad sold 15 million. Some people have put up expectations of 20 million units for the Watch in its first year and some expect it to scale to tens of billions in revenue. There was an article about 30-40m components orders:
The entire watch industry is about $40-45b. At an ASP of $450, 88m Apple Watch units would make as much revenue as the entire watch industry and this is less than half the number of iPhones sold every year now.
I doubt it will get anywhere near that but I think it's possible for yearly sales to get to around 10-20 million units or so (2.5-5% of compatible iPhone owners), which would be $4.5-9b revenue per year. First year sales, I expect to be below 10 million units but I'd only say it was unsuccessful if it was below 2 million units.
I think you're much too lenient.
It's significantly cheaper than both the iPhone and iPad, so if it doesn't reach at least iPad numbers (whose ASP in it's first year was about $650), it will be a disappointment. 2 million would be laughable.
I would say that less than 10 million will be a failure, 10-15 million a bit disappointing.
It's significantly cheaper than both the iPhone and iPad, so if it doesn't reach at least iPad numbers (whose ASP in it's first year was about $650), it will be a disappointment. 2 million would be laughable.
I would say that less than 10 million will be a failure, 10-15 million a bit disappointing.
Where are you getting your pricing information to say that it's significantly cheaper?
Also, it may be significantly cheaper as a thing compared in absolute terms, but what's the value proposition? Consumers need to be convinced that a new product the likes of which they haven't used before is worth spending hundreds of dollars or pounds on. It took a while before iPhone sales really took off, because it wasn't wholly clear. The iPad less so, because it was similar enough to the iPhone ("just a big iPhone!", "Really? Cool") that people could see it. The Watch though? Not all that similar to anything else, so people need to be convinced, it'll need some growth time.
Selling 10 million of anything at Apple's markup is not even close to a failure. I'm pretty sure that was your marker for success just a couple of months ago, so well done for moving your own negative nelly goalposts.
It's significantly cheaper than both the iPhone and iPad, so if it doesn't reach at least iPad numbers (whose ASP in it's first year was about $650), it will be a disappointment. 2 million would be laughable.
I would say that less than 10 million will be a failure, 10-15 million a bit disappointing.
Where are you getting your pricing information to say that it's significantly cheaper?
Also, it may be significantly cheaper as a thing compared in absolute terms, but what's the value proposition? Consumers need to be convinced that a new product the likes of which they haven't used before is worth spending hundreds of dollars or pounds on. It took a while before iPhone sales really took off, because it wasn't wholly clear. The iPad less so, because it was similar enough to the iPhone ("just a big iPhone!", "Really? Cool") that people could see it. The Watch though? Not all that similar to anything else, so people need to be convinced, it'll need some growth time.
Selling 10 million of anything at Apple's markup is not even close to a failure. I'm pretty sure that was your marker for success just a couple of months ago, so well done for moving your own negative nelly goalposts.
Your surety is misplaced.
I have always stated that over 15 million sales would be a success, albeit somewhat mundane. 20 million or more would be hitting it out of the campus. 10-15 million would be disappointing. Under 10 million a failure.
It's significantly cheaper than both the iPhone and iPad, so if it doesn't reach at least iPad numbers (whose ASP in it's first year was about $650), it will be a disappointment. 2 million would be laughable.
The ?TV is significantly cheaper than the iPhone and iPad but only sells about 8 million per year. The iPhone has a huge advantage in being subsidized so the latest model is just $200 up-front. Samsung bundled their watch with the phone purchase so that's a route Apple could go down and the Watch cost would get absorbed into the monthly contract price (e.g $15/month extra). If they partnered with the carriers to get the 3G chip in and shared the data contract, that would allow the watch to be much more functional as you'd get VOIP, notifications, some location tracking even if it's not full GPS, streaming music without requiring the phone. Just go out running with Beats and the Watch and you don't need the phone with you. If you get too tired, use the Watch to get an Uber taxi home and pay for it with the Watch or find nearby cafes/restaurants. Proper functional mobile internet was the huge thing that the iPhone brought to phones.
Another factor to weigh in with the Watch is upgrade cycle. The iPad had good first year sales but the upgrade cycle and lower use of subsidized pricing has kept it lower than the iPhone. The Apple Watch could sell well at first but have a very poor upgrade cycle.
Thing is, let's say they decided not to make a Watch at all, would that be better for them? It's not like they have an alternative product to focus their attention on.
Comments
Why do you care?
He's excited that Apple may finally have a dud product despite his many years of predicting its demise. Nothing would make him happier than to say, "I told you so. Apple just got lucky, " or "Apple can't survive without Steve. It's all downhill from here."
Umm I would get a refund on that mind reading app you use because it's obviously wrong. And stop with the misrepresentations already as I've Never predicted Apple's demise. Point us all one quote.
Oh really? What survey did you read that from?
Perhaps you're correct …. It appears that the Apple Watch will only be useful to someone with a pulse rate!
Don't worry, they will know how to answer you and you won't need a magnifying glass unless you already have problems reading the news paper.
Ellen does make fun of bad shit, I don't see this falling into that category.
My mid reading app gave me the same reading. Could it be that you don't know what you're thinking??
Absolutely, ever since the TV dinner which had a production estimate of 5,000 dinners for the first year. Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production.
Conservatively, Apple has sold 320 Million iPhones in the last 2 years ...
Is that conservative?
http://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/
Last 8 quarters = 39.27m+35.2m+43.72m+51.03m+33.8m+31.24m+37.42m+47.79m = 319.47 millions units
Seems pretty on the money for me, with all but the most recent figure being an actual sales report.
What's half a mil plus change among friends
I used the same chart, but just eyeballed the the graph bars to average out to ~ 40 mil units per quarter ... Actually, I assumed a pretty big CYQ4 would cover any shortfall!
BTW, your 37.42m -- is actually 37.43m.
Perhaps you're correct …. It appears that the Apple Watch will only be useful to someone with a pulse rate!
If the iWatch is incapable of performing real world use as a watch, it will not be capable of performing all the other functions it was supposedly designed to do. Say the function is as an alarm -- a haptic function that is supposed to be present. Well, if the watch is sitting bedside charging overnight, the haptic functionality isn't going to work. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. One useful function of a well-designed watch might be to monitor your sleep cycle and have the alarm go off in REM (the lightest sleep phase). Can't do that function either.
If you want to see a watch which, though more limited in functionality, is superior to the iWatch in that what it does it does very well. The Withings Activite` has Blue Tooth, haptic alarm, sapphire glass, good in the water up to 5 ATM (about 132 ft), a battery that lasts 8 months to a year, and is a fitness tracker including swimming fitness tracker.
Current specs from Apple doesn't show that the iWatch compares favorably to the Activite`.
One thing Apple was supposedly good at was only attempting to do what it could do well -- the hardest part was deciding what features NOT to do. Here, the iWatch specs shows it is trying to either do too much, or is too enamored with style over substance. Basically Withings beat Apple at it's own game.
The iPhone sold about 6 million units in its first year, the iPad sold 15 million. Some people have put up expectations of 20 million units for the Watch in its first year and some expect it to scale to tens of billions in revenue. There was an article about 30-40m components orders:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/13/apple-watch-chip-suppliers-rumored-to-start-production-soon-orders-at-30m-to-40m-units
The entire watch industry is about $40-45b. At an ASP of $450, 88m Apple Watch units would make as much revenue as the entire watch industry and this is less than half the number of iPhones sold every year now.
I doubt it will get anywhere near that but I think it's possible for yearly sales to get to around 10-20 million units or so (2.5-5% of compatible iPhone owners), which would be $4.5-9b revenue per year. First year sales, I expect to be below 10 million units but I'd only say it was unsuccessful if it was below 2 million units.
I think you're much too lenient.
It's significantly cheaper than both the iPhone and iPad, so if it doesn't reach at least iPad numbers (whose ASP in it's first year was about $650), it will be a disappointment. 2 million would be laughable.
I would say that less than 10 million will be a failure, 10-15 million a bit disappointing.
I think you're much too lenient.
It's significantly cheaper than both the iPhone and iPad, so if it doesn't reach at least iPad numbers (whose ASP in it's first year was about $650), it will be a disappointment. 2 million would be laughable.
I would say that less than 10 million will be a failure, 10-15 million a bit disappointing.
Where are you getting your pricing information to say that it's significantly cheaper?
Also, it may be significantly cheaper as a thing compared in absolute terms, but what's the value proposition? Consumers need to be convinced that a new product the likes of which they haven't used before is worth spending hundreds of dollars or pounds on. It took a while before iPhone sales really took off, because it wasn't wholly clear. The iPad less so, because it was similar enough to the iPhone ("just a big iPhone!", "Really? Cool") that people could see it. The Watch though? Not all that similar to anything else, so people need to be convinced, it'll need some growth time.
Selling 10 million of anything at Apple's markup is not even close to a failure. I'm pretty sure that was your marker for success just a couple of months ago, so well done for moving your own negative nelly goalposts.
Your surety is misplaced.
I have always stated that over 15 million sales would be a success, albeit somewhat mundane. 20 million or more would be hitting it out of the campus. 10-15 million would be disappointing. Under 10 million a failure.
The ?TV is significantly cheaper than the iPhone and iPad but only sells about 8 million per year. The iPhone has a huge advantage in being subsidized so the latest model is just $200 up-front. Samsung bundled their watch with the phone purchase so that's a route Apple could go down and the Watch cost would get absorbed into the monthly contract price (e.g $15/month extra). If they partnered with the carriers to get the 3G chip in and shared the data contract, that would allow the watch to be much more functional as you'd get VOIP, notifications, some location tracking even if it's not full GPS, streaming music without requiring the phone. Just go out running with Beats and the Watch and you don't need the phone with you. If you get too tired, use the Watch to get an Uber taxi home and pay for it with the Watch or find nearby cafes/restaurants. Proper functional mobile internet was the huge thing that the iPhone brought to phones.
Another factor to weigh in with the Watch is upgrade cycle. The iPad had good first year sales but the upgrade cycle and lower use of subsidized pricing has kept it lower than the iPhone. The Apple Watch could sell well at first but have a very poor upgrade cycle.
Thing is, let's say they decided not to make a Watch at all, would that be better for them? It's not like they have an alternative product to focus their attention on.