It's certainly possible you had the same view in 2002 as you do now, but for most people is what the opposite of a proper move for Apple.
Unbelievably expensive with a finite amount of space compared to the then logic of unlimited CDs with better quality music at much lower prices.
You should watch Jobs present the original iPod. Lots of confused people.
It's kind of crazy, isn't it?
Looking back I would have never imagined it wa the gateway to Apple's current position in the market. All of the success they have today can be attributed back into revenue, design, and image they built for themselves with the iPod.
Though, admittedly, it took them awhile to get right (I'd say the first great iPod was released in '04).
Really looking forward to this. I see lots of value (to me) in Apple Watch.
The app clearly allows you to customize your watch. I expect to visit these settings a couple times to get it "just right" then likely hardly ever open that app again.
Here's a question fro the tech savvy here: One of the more common places people will be using their Apple Watch is at home. Having a "lock" via BT to your phone while at home is going to be a must, and people will likely keep their iPhone somewhere other than in their pocket while at home. Is it technically possible to have some sort of accessory to boost BT signal? An iPhone dock with BT "boost?" Or a BT repeater to locate somewhere in the house? Or maybe build into a new iteration of Airport?
Apple Watch neatly solves one of the issues I have from ditching my landline years ago: I don't carry my iPhone in my pocket at home, and occasionally miss calls (unless I am using my Mac with connectivity!) Now my watch will alert me.
The BLE signal is nominally accessible within 10 meters excepting interference or intervening barriers (walls, etc.).
The Apple Watch does have a WiFi radio and antenna (AIR, G) -- but it's use is undefined. If supported, a household router or AppleTV could provide what you want.
I don't understand what you mean. Why would you need a boost (or relay) of the BT signal to keep your iPhone unlocked or locked? If you're not in proximity of your iPhone would you need it unlocked and if you are why not use the standard BT signal strength for it to determine your range?
Also, with Touch ID, auto-unlock isn't as useful as it was when I envisioned that feature years ago. Since Macs don't have Touch ID, that could be useful in "safe" areas when the signal strength is highest.
To clarify, I didn't mean lock/unlock in the TouchID sense. I meant "paired without droput via bluetooth." My bad.
The issue is proximity only. Users will be very frustrated if the watch loses its BT connection to iPhone in their homes. Some folks have a lot of interference in their homes due to...well...I'm not sure why, but wifi signals and cell signals can be spotty. I notice dropouts in BT speakers connections even when they are within a few feet of the mac/ipod/iphone for reasons I never understand. Very annoying when listening to music.
The BLE signal is nominally accessible within 10 meters excepting interference or intervening barriers (walls, etc.).
The Apple Watch does have a WiFi radio and antenna (AIR, G) -- but it's use is undefined. If supported, a household router or AppleTV could provide what you want.
I thought BTLE is about 10 times the distance you quoted, maxing out at ~>100m, which is more accurate in my own observations.
But most importantly is Apple (and BT) abstracting out the differentiation of protocols, so ideally, it doesn't matter.
I really don't understand how people can say there's no compelling use for the Apple Watch. Besides the health tracking (which many people already find very useful), there are dozens of other great uses that even the most stubborn pragmatist would find worthwhile. The social aspect of being able to subtly get notifications without pulling out your phone (which may be rude in certain situations) is worth the price alone. But the most useful aspect, I think, is that it will function as a Touch ID proxy.. that has bluetooth capabilities. This will not only replace your keys and wallet, but it will be much more convenient than either of them (no more fumbling with cards and keys).* For the iPhone to verify your ID securely (to unlock your car/frontdoor/computer/hotelroom) or to make payments, it requires you to pull your phone out and get your fingerprint; with the watch, no action is required, because as long as it hasn't left your wrist, your identity remains securely validated. This is something that is useful right now, but as we get more connected, and our world becomes smarter, this function will be more and more useful. NB: Apple Pay terminals will be exploding in popularity throughout 2015 (in the US) due to laws requiring more secure payment methods; this will provide a popular and concrete use case for the Apple Watch.
*Apple is already promoting the 'internet of things' in its stores. I recently saw a demo model of a remote key door lock prominently displayed on one of the Apple Store tables, rather than just being placed along with the other mac/iOS accessories.
I don't see anything about the AW that fixes a problem that a vast amount of people are having.
Your comment is strawman. And here's why… Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2002? Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2010?
These devices changed history and culture because they enriched lives, yet before they existed there were no vast majorities of people saying I really wish I had this exact device. Even after they were introduced most said it wasn't going to be successful or couldn't see how they needed it as it solved no "problem" in their lives. It took several years for some people to come around, at which point many of them changed their tune to say how obviuos it was in the first place.
I see zero indication that the wearables market will be any different.
Last year, an AT&T salesman showed me all the features of his smartwatch. Most involved customizations like that described above. Was I impressed?
No, watches are for telling time. As long as they do that I'm happy. I don't need changing faces for them. If I were style-obsessed enough to care, owning several watches would be cheaper and simpler.
Nor do I need a watch that takes my pulse. I used to be on the nursing staff at a hospital. I can take my own pulse rate in a few seconds.
I'm sure Apple won't have any trouble selling millions of these watches. But for me they're a solution in search of a problem. Before the iPhone came out, I spent several years searching in vain for a cell phone that did what it does. I've not been in any search for a new and improved watch.
I for one have been looking for a wearable phone/fitness companion that can store music for a long time. Consider it as an upgraded fitbit or jawbone, jammed together with an ipod nano, plus as an added bonus you get all the other smart phone paired functions like messaging, calendars and gps assistant.
That is a fantastic product for its price range, and definitely worth the upgrade every year or two.
Just FYI, having a wearable, standalone music storage device with Bluetooth in and of itself is well worth the money.
being able to leave your iPhone in your pocket/purse/bag is an attraction for many. they are the AWatch target market.
so the AWatch will be the easiest possible way to check messages and emails throughout the day. that alone is very useful, but of course other smart watches can do that already. all the health tracking stuff is also important to some people, but then you can get a Fibit now for that too. the Android smart watches feature Google Now voice services, but i don't know if that includes turn-by-turn navigation like the AWatch version of Siri does, which will come in handy. Apple Pay is definitely a plus for the AWatch, but the competition will likely catch up with that next year.
so the key issue i think is the usability of taking/making phone calls with AWatch. droid smart watches don't do that yet. can you hear it good? outdoors? without putting your wrist next to your ear and looking silly? how is the voice/sound quality? this is a real technical challenge. that's the deciding issue for me.
i just wish it had a Face Time camera too. then we'd have Dick Tracy.
would note, $350 is just not that much money nowadays for the middle class households that buy a lot of Apple products. fussing about that price vs. $150 for droid gear is missing the point. if every $100 is important to you i sympathize - and that is true for too many Americans - but Apple does not enter the discount commodity market you have to rely on. instead Apple's core market is the professional class - upper middle class - and of course the well-to-do.
The main issue is going to be the timeframe for developing baseband chips that are power efficient enough to stick in the future ?Watch models. Once they can get it independent of an iPhone, then the game will change.
My initial reaction was similar to yours -- the Apple Watch needs to have all the radios so it can be independent of the iPhone ... That could happen, say, within 2-4 years.
But, even then, would you want to go anywhere (beach, hiking, jogging, etc.) without your iPhone?
The Apple Watch is convenience exemplified -- but there are some things that just can be done better, easier, faster on the iPhone.
To clarify, I didn't mean lock/unlock in the TouchID sense. I meant "paired without droput via bluetooth." My bad.
The issue is proximity only. Users will be very frustrated if the watch loses its BT connection to iPhone in their homes. Some folks have a lot of interference in their homes due to...well...I'm not sure why, but wifi signals and cell signals can be spotty. I notice dropouts in BT speakers connections even when they are within a few feet of the mac/ipod/iphone for reasons I never understand. Very annoying when listening to music.
I expect that to connect and disconnect seamlessly without any additional user interaction, like when I get into my car and my iPhone connects via BT automatically.
My initial reaction was similar to yours -- the Apple Watch needs to have all the radios so it can be independent of the iPhone ... That could happen, say, within 2-4 years.
But, even then, would you want to go anywhere (beach, hiking, jogging, etc.) without your iPhone?
The Apple Watch is convenience exemplified -- but there are some things that just can be done better, easier, faster on the iPhone.
It remains to be seen how interactions turn out, yes. That being said, there are times it might be nice to not have the phone with you (running, etc).
That being said, I think it makes the 6 Plus more attractive, because you'll have to pull it out less.
You are right. People fixate on how 'they' perceive the world assuming 'they' are correct.
Here is some fun trivia on the topic of time.
Time itself (as in the time of day, not Einstein's take) is a relatively (oops) new concept in the way we accept it today. Back in England when the railways started, sundials were still used. This was fine with horse travel but the trains started arriving on a coast to cost trip before they'd left. It was impossible to create a printed time table that didn't look like something from Dr. Who (not that he was there then .. or was he?). The railways pushed and got standardized time based on London's time GMT .. and at the back then the papers were full of people objecting as this now meant the sun was in the wrong place at any given 'time' in the UK anywhere west of London.
So THAT's how time began! Well, I knew it had nothing to do with religion and I was pretty sure Dr Who was involved, and now I know. Thanks for the info - I love that kind of stuff. I learned the other day the alleged origins of scoring tennis. One of the theories (there were more than one), also based on time. - The hour is divided into four quarters - 15 - 30 - 45 - game (except 45 is too unclear when called out so it became 40). The term Love apparently came from l'œuf (tennis is a french game), which means 'the egg' - i.e. zero. Hmmm... well, there were other theories.
Was the GMT based on the Inca, Mayan, Druid or Gregorian calendar :???:
My initial reaction was similar to yours -- the Apple Watch needs to have all the radios so it can be independent of the iPhone ... That could happen, say, within 2-4 years.
But, even then, would you want to go anywhere (beach, hiking, jogging, etc.) without your iPhone?
The Apple Watch is convenience exemplified -- but there are some things that just can be done better, easier, faster on the iPhone.
I think that's an unlikely scenario as I don't see the HW even remotely on the horizon for being either small or power efficient enough for viable high-speed cellular connectivity, much less replacing the iPhone. Note that Apple could have put every single one of these settings on ?Watch itself, but have a companion apps specifically because it's easier to do on an iPhone. They did not have a companion app on the Mac for adjusting Settings on the iPhone when it launched. This tells me ?Watch should not be expected to replace the iPhone. Even something simple as a reply to this forum isn't viable on ?Watch so how could you have full Internet access in 2-4 years?
You comment is strawman. And here's why… Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2002? Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2010?
These devices changed history and culture because they enriched lives, yet before they existed there were no vast majorities of people saying I really wish I had this exact device. Even after they were introduced most said it wasn't going to be successful or couldn't see how they needed it as it solved no "problem" in their lives. It took several years for some people to come around, at which point many of them changed their tune to say how obviuos it was in the first place.
I see zero indication that the wearables market will be any different.
There was, at the very least, a huge market for music when the iPod was released. The cd player was cumbersome. MP3 players fixed that. The iPod refined it. iTunes enhanced it.
You are right. People fixate on how 'they' perceive the world assuming 'they' are correct.
Here is some fun trivia on the topic of time.
Time itself (as in the time of day, not Einstein's take) is a relatively (oops) new concept in the way we accept it today. Back in England when the railways started, sundials were still used. This was fine with horse travel but the trains started arriving on a coast to cost trip before they'd left. It was impossible to create a printed time table that didn't look like something from Dr. Who (not that he was there then .. or was he?). The railways pushed and got standardized time based on London's time GMT .. and at the back then the papers were full of people objecting as this now meant the sun was in the wrong place at any given 'time' in the UK anywhere west of London.
What is the minimum speed a train must travel from East to West from London along the latitudinal line to arrive its destination earlier than it left?
I have long been looking for a work out companion that is wearable, tracks fitness, holds internal music storage, has Bluetooth connectivity, looks nice, and can tell time. This is enough reason for me to buy the Apple Watch already, but as a bonus it also doubles as a cellular compaion, giving you functions that you wouldn't find on regular smart watches such as messaging, calendar, mobile pay and gps.
To me the Watch is well worth $300-$500 and I would happily upgrade it every 2-3 years. consider it as a well-designed ipod nano + jawbone up hybrid .
There was, at the very least, a huge market for music when the iPod was released. The cd player was cumbersome. MP3 players fixed that. The iPod refined it. iTunes enhanced it.
Show me the same market for the Apple Watch.
Straw man indeed.
1) Hundreds of years of market for watches and several years of fitness trackers show that wrist-worn devices are successful.
2) Again, do you realize how silly it sounds to say that in 2002 (or earlier) that "MP3 players" fixed a major problem people had? Do you know how few "MP3 players" were sold before 2002? Your memory is tricking into believing the iPod was something it was not. There was no golden ticket. There was Eureka! moment as soon as everyone saw it the first time. It literally took YEARS before it took off, yet, if ?Watch does multiples of what the iPod did post iTunes Store, iTunes on Windows, and iPod mini it'll be called a failure, just like the iPad was in 2010 despite being the fastest growing and selling consumer tech ever made.
edit: PS: I will say, unequivocally, that that the wearable electronics market is the cusp of being the next big thing with sales into the double digit billions within a few years.
I really don't understand how people can say there's no compelling use for the Apple Watch. Besides the health tracking (which many people already find very useful), there are dozens of other great uses that even the most stubborn pragmatist would find worthwhile. The social aspect of being able to subtly get notifications without pulling out your phone (which may be rude in certain situations) is worth the price alone. But the most useful aspect, I think, is that it will function as a Touch ID proxy.. that has bluetooth capabilities. This will not only replace your keys and wallet, but it will be much more convenient than either of them (no more fumbling with cards and keys).* For the iPhone to verify your ID securely (to unlock your car/frontdoor/computer/hotelroom) or to make payments, it requires you to pull your phone out and get your fingerprint; with the watch, no action is required, because as long as it hasn't left your wrist, your identity remains securely validated. This is something that is useful right now, but as we get more connected, and our world becomes smarter, this function will be more and more useful. NB: Apple Pay terminals will be exploding in popularity throughout 2015 (in the US) due to laws requiring more secure payment methods; this will provide a popular and concrete use case for the Apple Watch.
*Apple is already promoting the 'internet of things' in its stores. I recently saw a demo model of a remote key door lock prominently displayed on one of the Apple Store tables, rather than just being placed along with the other mac/iOS accessories.
Indeed. Lots of very confident predictions of ?Watch failure. If the product is successful (as I predict), will we see as many mea culpas? Unlikely. They will rely on moving the goal posts.
Apple is investing in this as the next platform. To Apple, success is not immediate financial, but how to grow this platform over the next 5 years. It starts as a companion to iPhone, but will gain more autonomy, more functions, and better battery life over next few releases.
So some have listed their reasons why it will not be successful (which boils down to them not conceiving of a use for themselves), so here is some arguments on why it will likely be successful:
- Sweet spot of price for Apple's target markets (as noted above $350 is not "expensive" for something a person wants, for hundreds of millions of people. A night out a restaurant will set a couple back over $100 these days). A good price point for meaningful gifts for family/loved ones.
- Minor conveniences add up. Estimates are that today people pull out their phone over 100 times/day, mostly to check the time or messages.
- New ways of communicating with close friends/family (communication is the lynch pin of attraction of devices and services). Asian markets with the sketches could be huge.
- Built in core apps have usability to many today: health, fitness, iPod music, ?Pay, secure entry
- Expect a few "hit apps" at a minimum.
- Many people will buy "cool new" stuff.
- iPhone user base of over 500M to start with.
I understand why so many media & bloggers write the stuff they do - being "anti-Apple" has proven to be one of the most reliable ways to get traffic for their articles. I have less understanding why commenters on forums do so, as there is no financial gain for them.
Comments
It's certainly possible you had the same view in 2002 as you do now, but for most people is what the opposite of a proper move for Apple.
Unbelievably expensive with a finite amount of space compared to the then logic of unlimited CDs with better quality music at much lower prices.
You should watch Jobs present the original iPod. Lots of confused people.
It's kind of crazy, isn't it?
Looking back I would have never imagined it wa the gateway to Apple's current position in the market. All of the success they have today can be attributed back into revenue, design, and image they built for themselves with the iPod.
Though, admittedly, it took them awhile to get right (I'd say the first great iPod was released in '04).
The BLE signal is nominally accessible within 10 meters excepting interference or intervening barriers (walls, etc.).
The Apple Watch does have a WiFi radio and antenna (AIR, G) -- but it's use is undefined. If supported, a household router or AppleTV could provide what you want.
I don't understand what you mean. Why would you need a boost (or relay) of the BT signal to keep your iPhone unlocked or locked? If you're not in proximity of your iPhone would you need it unlocked and if you are why not use the standard BT signal strength for it to determine your range?
Also, with Touch ID, auto-unlock isn't as useful as it was when I envisioned that feature years ago. Since Macs don't have Touch ID, that could be useful in "safe" areas when the signal strength is highest.
To clarify, I didn't mean lock/unlock in the TouchID sense. I meant "paired without droput via bluetooth." My bad.
The issue is proximity only. Users will be very frustrated if the watch loses its BT connection to iPhone in their homes. Some folks have a lot of interference in their homes due to...well...I'm not sure why, but wifi signals and cell signals can be spotty. I notice dropouts in BT speakers connections even when they are within a few feet of the mac/ipod/iphone for reasons I never understand. Very annoying when listening to music.
The BLE signal is nominally accessible within 10 meters excepting interference or intervening barriers (walls, etc.).
The Apple Watch does have a WiFi radio and antenna (AIR, G) -- but it's use is undefined. If supported, a household router or AppleTV could provide what you want.
I thought BTLE is about 10 times the distance you quoted, maxing out at ~>100m, which is more accurate in my own observations.
But most importantly is Apple (and BT) abstracting out the differentiation of protocols, so ideally, it doesn't matter.
I really don't understand how people can say there's no compelling use for the Apple Watch. Besides the health tracking (which many people already find very useful), there are dozens of other great uses that even the most stubborn pragmatist would find worthwhile. The social aspect of being able to subtly get notifications without pulling out your phone (which may be rude in certain situations) is worth the price alone. But the most useful aspect, I think, is that it will function as a Touch ID proxy.. that has bluetooth capabilities. This will not only replace your keys and wallet, but it will be much more convenient than either of them (no more fumbling with cards and keys).* For the iPhone to verify your ID securely (to unlock your car/frontdoor/computer/hotelroom) or to make payments, it requires you to pull your phone out and get your fingerprint; with the watch, no action is required, because as long as it hasn't left your wrist, your identity remains securely validated. This is something that is useful right now, but as we get more connected, and our world becomes smarter, this function will be more and more useful. NB: Apple Pay terminals will be exploding in popularity throughout 2015 (in the US) due to laws requiring more secure payment methods; this will provide a popular and concrete use case for the Apple Watch.
*Apple is already promoting the 'internet of things' in its stores. I recently saw a demo model of a remote key door lock prominently displayed on one of the Apple Store tables, rather than just being placed along with the other mac/iOS accessories.
Your comment is strawman. And here's why… Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2002? Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2010?
These devices changed history and culture because they enriched lives, yet before they existed there were no vast majorities of people saying I really wish I had this exact device. Even after they were introduced most said it wasn't going to be successful or couldn't see how they needed it as it solved no "problem" in their lives. It took several years for some people to come around, at which point many of them changed their tune to say how obviuos it was in the first place.
I see zero indication that the wearables market will be any different.
I for one have been looking for a wearable phone/fitness companion that can store music for a long time. Consider it as an upgraded fitbit or jawbone, jammed together with an ipod nano, plus as an added bonus you get all the other smart phone paired functions like messaging, calendars and gps assistant.
That is a fantastic product for its price range, and definitely worth the upgrade every year or two.
Just FYI, having a wearable, standalone music storage device with Bluetooth in and of itself is well worth the money.
being able to leave your iPhone in your pocket/purse/bag is an attraction for many. they are the AWatch target market.
so the AWatch will be the easiest possible way to check messages and emails throughout the day. that alone is very useful, but of course other smart watches can do that already. all the health tracking stuff is also important to some people, but then you can get a Fibit now for that too. the Android smart watches feature Google Now voice services, but i don't know if that includes turn-by-turn navigation like the AWatch version of Siri does, which will come in handy. Apple Pay is definitely a plus for the AWatch, but the competition will likely catch up with that next year.
so the key issue i think is the usability of taking/making phone calls with AWatch. droid smart watches don't do that yet. can you hear it good? outdoors? without putting your wrist next to your ear and looking silly? how is the voice/sound quality? this is a real technical challenge. that's the deciding issue for me.
i just wish it had a Face Time camera too. then we'd have Dick Tracy.
would note, $350 is just not that much money nowadays for the middle class households that buy a lot of Apple products. fussing about that price vs. $150 for droid gear is missing the point. if every $100 is important to you i sympathize - and that is true for too many Americans - but Apple does not enter the discount commodity market you have to rely on. instead Apple's core market is the professional class - upper middle class - and of course the well-to-do.
My initial reaction was similar to yours -- the Apple Watch needs to have all the radios so it can be independent of the iPhone ... That could happen, say, within 2-4 years.
But, even then, would you want to go anywhere (beach, hiking, jogging, etc.) without your iPhone?
The Apple Watch is convenience exemplified -- but there are some things that just can be done better, easier, faster on the iPhone.
I expect that to connect and disconnect seamlessly without any additional user interaction, like when I get into my car and my iPhone connects via BT automatically.
My initial reaction was similar to yours -- the Apple Watch needs to have all the radios so it can be independent of the iPhone ... That could happen, say, within 2-4 years.
But, even then, would you want to go anywhere (beach, hiking, jogging, etc.) without your iPhone?
The Apple Watch is convenience exemplified -- but there are some things that just can be done better, easier, faster on the iPhone.
It remains to be seen how interactions turn out, yes. That being said, there are times it might be nice to not have the phone with you (running, etc).
That being said, I think it makes the 6 Plus more attractive, because you'll have to pull it out less.
Was the GMT based on the Inca, Mayan, Druid or Gregorian calendar :???:
Was the GMT based on the Inca, Mayan, Druid or Gregorian calendar
None, the Julian calendar.
Like ?Pay, the info is all there. The 802.11 protocol is for Bluetooth High-Speed.
I think that's an unlikely scenario as I don't see the HW even remotely on the horizon for being either small or power efficient enough for viable high-speed cellular connectivity, much less replacing the iPhone. Note that Apple could have put every single one of these settings on ?Watch itself, but have a companion apps specifically because it's easier to do on an iPhone. They did not have a companion app on the Mac for adjusting Settings on the iPhone when it launched. This tells me ?Watch should not be expected to replace the iPhone. Even something simple as a reply to this forum isn't viable on ?Watch so how could you have full Internet access in 2-4 years?
You comment is strawman. And here's why… Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2002? Which "problem" did vast amounts of people have in 2010?
These devices changed history and culture because they enriched lives, yet before they existed there were no vast majorities of people saying I really wish I had this exact device. Even after they were introduced most said it wasn't going to be successful or couldn't see how they needed it as it solved no "problem" in their lives. It took several years for some people to come around, at which point many of them changed their tune to say how obviuos it was in the first place.
I see zero indication that the wearables market will be any different.
There was, at the very least, a huge market for music when the iPod was released. The cd player was cumbersome. MP3 players fixed that. The iPod refined it. iTunes enhanced it.
Show me the same market for the Apple Watch.
Straw man indeed.
What is the minimum speed a train must travel from East to West from London along the latitudinal line to arrive its destination earlier than it left?
To me the Watch is well worth $300-$500 and I would happily upgrade it every 2-3 years. consider it as a well-designed ipod nano + jawbone up hybrid .
1) Hundreds of years of market for watches and several years of fitness trackers show that wrist-worn devices are successful.
2) Again, do you realize how silly it sounds to say that in 2002 (or earlier) that "MP3 players" fixed a major problem people had? Do you know how few "MP3 players" were sold before 2002? Your memory is tricking into believing the iPod was something it was not. There was no golden ticket. There was Eureka! moment as soon as everyone saw it the first time. It literally took YEARS before it took off, yet, if ?Watch does multiples of what the iPod did post iTunes Store, iTunes on Windows, and iPod mini it'll be called a failure, just like the iPad was in 2010 despite being the fastest growing and selling consumer tech ever made.
edit: PS: I will say, unequivocally, that that the wearable electronics market is the cusp of being the next big thing with sales into the double digit billions within a few years.
I really don't understand how people can say there's no compelling use for the Apple Watch. Besides the health tracking (which many people already find very useful), there are dozens of other great uses that even the most stubborn pragmatist would find worthwhile. The social aspect of being able to subtly get notifications without pulling out your phone (which may be rude in certain situations) is worth the price alone. But the most useful aspect, I think, is that it will function as a Touch ID proxy.. that has bluetooth capabilities. This will not only replace your keys and wallet, but it will be much more convenient than either of them (no more fumbling with cards and keys).* For the iPhone to verify your ID securely (to unlock your car/frontdoor/computer/hotelroom) or to make payments, it requires you to pull your phone out and get your fingerprint; with the watch, no action is required, because as long as it hasn't left your wrist, your identity remains securely validated. This is something that is useful right now, but as we get more connected, and our world becomes smarter, this function will be more and more useful. NB: Apple Pay terminals will be exploding in popularity throughout 2015 (in the US) due to laws requiring more secure payment methods; this will provide a popular and concrete use case for the Apple Watch.
*Apple is already promoting the 'internet of things' in its stores. I recently saw a demo model of a remote key door lock prominently displayed on one of the Apple Store tables, rather than just being placed along with the other mac/iOS accessories.
Indeed. Lots of very confident predictions of ?Watch failure. If the product is successful (as I predict), will we see as many mea culpas? Unlikely. They will rely on moving the goal posts.
Apple is investing in this as the next platform. To Apple, success is not immediate financial, but how to grow this platform over the next 5 years. It starts as a companion to iPhone, but will gain more autonomy, more functions, and better battery life over next few releases.
So some have listed their reasons why it will not be successful (which boils down to them not conceiving of a use for themselves), so here is some arguments on why it will likely be successful:
- Sweet spot of price for Apple's target markets (as noted above $350 is not "expensive" for something a person wants, for hundreds of millions of people. A night out a restaurant will set a couple back over $100 these days). A good price point for meaningful gifts for family/loved ones.
- Minor conveniences add up. Estimates are that today people pull out their phone over 100 times/day, mostly to check the time or messages.
- New ways of communicating with close friends/family (communication is the lynch pin of attraction of devices and services). Asian markets with the sketches could be huge.
- Built in core apps have usability to many today: health, fitness, iPod music, ?Pay, secure entry
- Expect a few "hit apps" at a minimum.
- Many people will buy "cool new" stuff.
- iPhone user base of over 500M to start with.
I understand why so many media & bloggers write the stuff they do - being "anti-Apple" has proven to be one of the most reliable ways to get traffic for their articles. I have less understanding why commenters on forums do so, as there is no financial gain for them.
Was the GMT based on the Inca, Mayan, Druid or Gregorian calendar
GMT? Druid, of course.... I would assume... I don't know if the Druids hung out at Greenwich much but at least they were British, right?