Exclude China and he's in. Why won't you exclude China?
Why would you exclude China (or any other country) when talking about unit sales? It's about the success of a product so every nation they are able to sell in should be included. Over the years we've seen Apple reduce the number of countries out of the gate and stagger their releases because they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand, but we're talking about less than less than 10% in a year what all iDevices do in a quarter. [@]pazuzu[/@]'s argument should be able to stand up on it's own regardless of how Apple attempts to peddle ?Watch to the masses, if it's really that much of a crap product.
And make billions doing it. They cater to people who couldn’t care less about hardware and just want good products. They’re the only ones who make ANY money, aren’t they?
Just like Apple.
Because, again, apps don’t make any sense there.
Catering to people who don't care about hardware and just want good products worked wonders for the Wii. It was extremely innovative and it sold extremely well. However, the last few years have not been so kind to Nintendo and the Wii-U is far from a hit. Back when the Wii came out, they made up for the weaker graphics with an innovative controller. That's not working so well for them these days. They are definitely long overdue for a hardware upgrade, whatever that means. I think the fact that Nintendo's customer base doesn't care about cutting edge graphics aligns them quite well with Apple in that both Apple and Nintendo customers care more about the overall experience than the best graphics possible. If Apple TV became the new Nintendo game console and Nintendo games became iOS exclusive, I think it would be a huge hit. Nintendo would probably add a lot more value to Apple, especially long run, than Beats (not that I'm a Beats hater or disapprove of Apple having bought them).
As for apps not making sense on Apple TV, I think you're totally wrong there and can't see the huge opportunity. Games for starters. Are you telling me that games don't make sense? Really? So many people want Apple to "reinvent" TV and we keep reading all these articles about Apple and the media companies struggling to come to terms. Screw them. Just open Apple TV to apps and let the market sort itself out. Let independent producers produce content and sell it via their apps with in-app purchases. Let local news channels create Apple TV apps. Let developers create cool web cam apps. There are many types of apps that would benefit from the large TV screen. Virtual travel tours. Educational apps. I can imagine all kinds of fun, interactive experiences where people could collaborate and play together around a big screen in the living room. Do you think apps on a tiny little watch screen make more sense than apps on a giant TV screen? I don't.
Why would you exclude China (or any other country) when talking about unit sales? It's about the success of a product so every nation they are able to sell in should be included. Over the years we've seen Apple reduce the number of countries out of the gate and stagger their releases because they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand, but we're talking about less than less than 10% in a year what all iDevices do in a quarter. @pazuzu's argument should be able to stand up on it's own regardless of how Apple attempts to peddle ?Watch to the masses, if it's really that much of a crap product.
You're right. I was still stuck on this piece of bs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
10 million in the first year would be the fastest selling Apple product in its history.
Why would you exclude China (or any other country) when talking about unit sales? It's about the success of a product so every nation they are able to sell in should be included. Over the years we've seen Apple reduce the number of countries out of the gate and stagger their releases because they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand, but we're talking about less than less than 10% in a year what all iDevices do in a quarter. @pazuzu's argument should be able to stand up on it's own regardless of how Apple attempts to peddle ?Watch to the masses, if it's really that much of a crap product.
I remember not that long ago seeing AI members poo pooing the Note as being a niche product for selling only 5 million in a quarter (I seem to recall sog35 being one of the people denigrating the Note for selling such low numbers).
At least now I know that things have changed and selling 2.5 million per quarter is no longer niche and is now considered a massive amount.
To be clear Nintendo is NOT behind in hardware. They are also the only company innovating in the gaming industry.
Sony/MS' controllers, consoles and games are all copycats of Nintendo's work.
Heck even Steve Jobs wanted to copy the Wii remote idea for AppleTV.
But like Apple, tech blogs and journalists love to sh** on Nintendo and people eat that up.
Nintendo's marketing is GARBAGE. If Apple bought them we would see a clash of amazing game leaders and engineers and good marketing.
Look, I love Nintendo, but anyone who isn't hopelessly biased can see that their hardware is pretty long in the tooth. The Wii's weaker graphics were made up for with a great controller and game experience. And it sold like crazy for the first few years. The Wii-U hasn't done nearly as well. I don't think Nintendo's marketing is the problem either. It might not be great, but they have much bigger problems. For starters, smartphones are eating into the portable game console market. This will only continue. And gaming consoles are becoming home hubs.
If Apple TV became the next Nintendo console and Nintendo games became iOS exclusive, it would be a marriage made in heaven. Furthermore, Nintendo's R&D surely has all kinds of cool things in the works that would align with what Apple is doing. Apple paid 3 BILLION dollars for a fancy, fad-ish headphone company. Nintendo would add much greater value. The video game market is enormous and Nintendo's established franchises are much loved.
I have no idea how well the two corporate cultures would mix (if at all), but I do think an Apple-Nintendo marriage, combined with an upgraded Apple TV with apps, gaming, and game rentals, could be a huge winner.
Iphone was less than 10 million in its first year. IPad was more.
Regardless 10 million is a huge number
You're right. I hadn't realized Jobs desire for the then 1% of the 1B handset market was missed, and by quite a bit. It looks like they only sold just under 6M in the first four quarters. Now if you take the four calendar or fiscal quarters of 2008 you get over 10M, but I don't recall that being what he meant.
720k sold, for the entire year of 2014, and that's ALL of them combined! How laughable. How pathetic. How embarrassing. What an epic fail.
Well if you own an android watch, at least you're not lonely, but there're 719,999 others by your side...lol.
Seriously, I live in Silicon Valley and I see almost every gadget around, but for the entire 2014 and until last week, I have seen only 2 Android watches on people wrists: Moto 360 in Dec 2014 and Samsung Gear Fit last week...
How can you have a "sports watch" that isn't waterproof- no- make that water resistant? You have to take it off every time you get in a shower! Apple needs to call it- "near- water resistant".
This thing get more laughable the more I read about it.
If you consider taking a shower as sport, you're sick.
10 million is massive considering you need an iphone5 or newer to use the watch. The addressable market is only about 400 million ( those who own iphone5 or newer) while the ipad and iphone had an addressable market of billions.
I don't even bet it at 10 millions, I would say Apple will crush 15 millions too. Look at the failure of android gears out there. Do you know why? The answer is: there's a better watch (with Apple logo) coming. Why didn't Swiss watch makers pay attentions to android gears while they're now scared of Apple watch? It's because Apple make the best product with best user experience. I had some friends who never wear watches, but they said they would buy it.
Apple don't just prepare supplies of 60 million units for no reason.
I would be willing to up my bet to 15 million, making it the fastest selling apple hardware ever. But i thing Pazuzu would still chicken out because deep in his heart he knows the watch will be a massive success.
Why not just say it'll do better than the previous winner of the fastest selling CE accessory, the Kinect, instead of comparing it to a mature product for which it accessorizes?
However, the last few years have not been so kind to Nintendo and the Wii-U is far from a hit.
The WiiU was a leviathan mistake in naming and marketing alone. In every other way it was a laudable improvement to the Wii.
If Apple TV became the new Nintendo game console and Nintendo games became iOS exclusive, I think it would be a huge hit.
Oh, tens of billions in profit for both Apple and Nintendo. No question about it. Nintendo could release their entire console back library on iOS (up through GameCube right now) and have it stream directly to an Apple TV. And their entire portable library for direct iOS play. Heck, release the stuff for OS X, too.
As for apps not making sense on Apple TV, I think you're totally wrong there and can't see the huge opportunity. Games for starters. Are you telling me that games don't make sense? Really?
Of course not. Apps don’t.
It’s a television. You have to make things suitable for a television. All existing video content apps, most games–absolutely viable. But most of everything else? The other hundreds of thousands of potential things to have (not just existing apps, but their content and purpose)? No point. That’s why having an “App Store” on the Apple TV is stupid. “App” connotes a far wider variety of things that would be useful or intelligent to have on a television.
I’ve always made the distinction here of Channels (capital C). Content designed for the television. You’d have the existing video apps (Channels), a Channel for games (single channel on the Springboard to avoid clutter, open it and you’d have your entire game catalogue listed and searchable separately), and then all new Channels with content based on TV content.
Meaning either 1:1 copies of existing TV channels (like the CBS option on Apple TV now) or entirely new broadcasting content options created specifically for the Apple TV as a cable/satellite killer.
I just want to make the distinction because it’s important the Apple TV be the best of what it’s supposed to be. Not just a pathetic catch-all of any “app” content.
Obligatory shameless and partially related plug for my idea of Video iAds–interactive advertisements that replace the standard OTA advertisement stream and which would make people WANT to not skip ads due to the extra information, linkability, and content presentable therein.
Selling 5 million phones in a quarter is niche since the smartphone market is mature and especially since apple was selling 50 million phones in a quarter. The wearables market is just beginning so you cant compare unit sales to phones sales in 2013 which had total units nearing a billion.
Even the ipad which was apples fastest selling product ever only sold 14 million in its first year. And anyone could buy an ipad. Only iphone 5 and newer users can use the watch. So yes 10 million sales would be massive.
I would be willing to up my bet to 15 million, making it the fastest selling apple hardware ever. But i thing Pazuzu would still chicken out because deep in his heart he knows the watch will be a massive success.
If you're willing to move the goalposts this far before the watch is sold, I can only guess how far they'll be moved once it's on the market.
I'll up my bet to 15 million, which would be the fastest selling apple product EVER.
Now you have no excuse to refuse my bet. You said the watch would be an utter failure. So how can an utter and massive FAILURE be the fastest selling apple product ever?
Its time to man up or no one will respect your opinion. Everone has a right to an opinion but when one fails to back it up, questions need to be asked about hidden motives. If you truely beleive the watch is horrible you would take my bet without hesitation.
I'll take that without hesitation.
[ @pazuzu - I know you're here just to grind everyone's gears, pazuzu, and it's probably just a sport for you, but why not up the ante a bit and take one of these bets. You're not trying to tell me that it would actually affect you if you were wrong, are you? If that's true then hmmmmmmmm... ]
This society is nuts, seriously. I don't care what anyone says 720,000 is not a stumble, sorry. I am getting an %uF8FFWatch, but still. Why does 1/5th of the planet have to have this watch for some douchebag to declare a success. I mean if they made 3 Million. and only sold 720K sure that would be a failure but that's bad business not a bad product. IDK.
It’s a television. You have to make things suitable for a television. All existing video content apps, most games–absolutely viable. But most of everything else? The other hundreds of thousands of potential things to have (not just existing apps, but their content and purpose)? No point. That’s why having an “App Store” on the Apple TV is stupid. “App” connotes a far wider variety of things that would be useful or intelligent to have on a television.
I’ve always made the distinction here of Channels (capital C). Content designed for the television. You’d have the existing video apps (Channels), a Channel for games (single channel on the Springboard to avoid clutter, open it and you’d have your entire game catalogue listed and searchable separately), and then all new Channels with content based on TV content.
Meaning either 1:1 copies of existing TV channels (like the CBS option on Apple TV now) or entirely new broadcasting content options created specifically for the Apple TV as a cable/satellite killer.
I just want to make the distinction because it’s important the Apple TV be the best of what it’s supposed to be. Not just a pathetic catch-all of any “app” content.
Too limited in vision. Why limit anything? Why limit someone's creativity? Yes, it's a television. And what is a television? A big screen. What do you call Beats Music on the Apple TV? iCloud Photos? I call them apps. What about weather? I'd love to look at high def radar images on my TV. Maybe Facebook creates an app that only displays images and videos. Interactive news apps. The possibilities are endless and the platform certainly doesn't deserve to be crippled by limiting it to "channels" (how old school and boring) and a separate games area.
Why shouldn't I be able to turn on the TV in my bedroom as I'm getting dressed in the morning and say "Siri, show me my day today" and have a "day view" appear on the screen? A lot of people have Apple TVs connected to their home stereo systems. Why no Pandora or Spotify? I do a lot of long distance backpacking. I'd love to view my tracked routes on my TV, maybe watch a 3D fly-through. Google Earth. Maybe I have my friends over after a trip and there's some kind of interactive travel journal I can show them. Maybe they can subscribe to my interactive travel journal on their Apple TVs at home? I could go on and on...
I think you've missed something terribly important. The TV is the one screen we use TOGETHER. We gather around it. Computer, phone, watch, tablet...these are all things we use alone. Limiting it to "channels" isn't innovative at all. Limiting it period isn't innovative. Open the platform and let people create.
What do you call Beats Music on the Apple TV? iCloud Photos? I call them apps. What about weather? I'd love to look at high def radar images on my TV. Maybe Facebook creates an app that only displays images and videos. Interactive news apps. The possibilities are endless and the platform certainly doesn't deserve to be crippled by limiting it to "channels" (how old school and boring) and a separate games area.
And all of that I just covered. In no way is it “crippling” anything.
The TV is the one screen we use TOGETHER. We gather around it.
And yet you want it to show you things for just you… Meanwhile we’ve already covered the togetherness aspect.
It’s easier by far to pick up an iPad, swipe down on the screen, and see what you have up for today.
And all of that I just covered. In no way is it “crippling” anything.
And yet you want it to show you things for just you… Meanwhile we’ve already covered the togetherness aspect.
It’s easier by far to pick up an iPad, swipe down on the screen, and see what you have up for today.
What if you don't have an iPad? You didn't cover anything. You said it should have channels and a separate area for games. I asked what about Beats? What about iCloud Photos? These are APPS. You didn't cover any of that in your earlier post, much less respond to my questions. You were just your usual dismissive self. It's stupid. Because I think so. End of story. Full of yourself much?
And yes, your vision for Apple TV is crippling. It's boring. It's old school. And it shows no vision at all. You want channels. Yawn. I want freedom for developers (and hardware manufacturers) to create cool things. I never said I wanted it to JUST show things for me. I gave a few examples of things it could do that do NOT fall into your utterly uninspired "channels" model.
This society is nuts, seriously. I don't care what anyone says 720,000 is not a stumble, sorry. I am getting an %uF8FFWatch, but still. Why does 1/5th of the planet have to have this watch for some douchebag to declare a success. I mean if they made 3 Million. and only sold 720K sure that would be a failure but that's bad business not a bad product. IDK.
720k across all vendors for 2 full quarters, one of which includes the holiday quarter is very poor for CE. And that's just shipments. How many of these were returned because they weren't very good or useful? I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher than 50%.
You said it should have channels and a separate area for games.
Did you miss this:
a Channel for games (single channel on the Springboard to avoid clutter, open it and you’d have your entire game catalogue listed and searchable separately)
or can you just not read? Did you miss how everyone’s whining about how the Springboard has “too much” crap on it now? Did you miss how Newsstand, iBooks, Music, and Video already do exactly the same thing I’m suggesting here?
Look, I know I’m mentally ill; I can’t remember anything short- or long-term, but don’t dare tell me I’m failing to explain this properly or that I’m taking too much for granted because if I, as pathetic as I am, can comprehend these fundamental things that we have to take for granted to have any sort of conversation, then I’m certain you can, too. Take five seconds to think about things.
I asked what about Beats? What about iCloud Photos? These are APPS.
And as they’re already on the Apple TV, it’s BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THEY’D STAY THERE. Come on, man; it’s not rocket science. I’m not going to spell everything out in every post. Do you need to know what binary is and how an LCD works to comprehend the next gen Apple TV, too?
And yes, your vision for Apple TV is crippling. It's boring. It's old school. And it shows no vision at all.
No, it’s fundamentally different and allows for the mythical a la carte television programming that will be the death of traditional presentations. Your lack of comprehension does not change that.
I gave a few examples of things it could do that do NOT fall into your utterly uninspired "channels" model.
Because, what, your day view wouldn’t show up as a channel on the Springboard? Yeah, I’m sure of that¡
Now, I do still like the Ticker I originally proposed in a really old mockup I did.
Where your notifications, instead of in a drag-down Notification Center (I did this before that existed, anyway), would show up in a scrolling Ticker (you could scroll it manually and highlighting an item would give more information in a popup; click, then, to perform a relevant action regarding it) at the bottom of the UI. Just like news channels since 2001.
Now that’s one way it wouldn’t be a Channel, but come on.
And I don’t care that they decided to perform genocide on skeuomorphism; I still really like Linen and Cotton (the fabric backgrounds Apple used to use).
or can you just not read? Did you miss how everyone’s whining about how the Springboard has “too much” crap on it now? Did you miss how Newsstand, iBooks, Music, and Video already do exactly the same thing I’m suggesting here?
Look, I know I’m mentally ill; I can’t remember anything short- or long-term, but don’t dare tell me I’m failing to explain this properly or that I’m taking too much for granted because if I, as pathetic as I am, can comprehend these fundamental things that we have to take for granted to have any sort of conversation, then I’m certain you can, too. Take five seconds to think about things.
And as they’re already on the Apple TV, it’s BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THEY’D STAY THERE. Come on, man; it’s not rocket science. I’m not going to spell everything out in every post. Do you need to know what binary is and how an LCD works to comprehend the next gen Apple TV, too?
No, it’s fundamentally different and allows for the mythical a la carte television programming that will be the death of traditional presentations. Your lack of comprehension does not change that.
Because, what, your day view wouldn’t show up as a channel on the Springboard? Yeah, I’m sure of that¡
Now, I do still like the Ticker I originally proposed in a really old mockup I did.
Where your notifications, instead of in a drag-down Notification Center (I did this before that existed, anyway), would show up in a scrolling Ticker (you could scroll it manually and highlighting an item would give more information in a popup; click, then, to perform a relevant action regarding it) at the bottom of the UI. Just like news channels since 2001.
Now that’s one way it wouldn’t be a Channel, but come on.
And I don’t care that they decided to perform genocide on skeuomorphism; I still really like Linen and Cotton (the fabric backgrounds Apple used to use).
So Beats and iCloud Photos can stay, but Pandora and Spotify are stupid? I can read just fine. Your idea for Apple TV is weak. It makes no sense to limit the platform. A TV is just another screen in one's home. Allow hardware manufacturers to create controllers for it. Allow developers to write apps for it. You haven't given one single reason why an App Store is "stupid". You've just dismissed it because YOU don't like it. I'll take you seriously when you actually give solid REASONS instead of just being dismissive.
As for an a la carte model, nothing you've said enables that. You're just hung up on only allowing video content and games onto the device. I'm in favor of letting people create whatever they want for the device. By your logic, the iPhone shouldn't allow anything that isn't communications related. Because, after all, a phone is for communicating and nothing else! Just like a TV is for watching video content and nothing else! Mentally ill indeed.
Oooooooo. A Ticker. How innovative!
And, for the record, I'm not against the idea of channels. In fact, I think channels make sense. They'd be one of the things you'd download from the App Store. When I think of a channel, I think of content being fed to me. But I wouldn't call an Amazon Prime Video app a channel. Nor would I call Netflix a channel. Nor would I call an independent producer's app that allows one to rent content a channel.
Comments
Why would you exclude China (or any other country) when talking about unit sales? It's about the success of a product so every nation they are able to sell in should be included. Over the years we've seen Apple reduce the number of countries out of the gate and stagger their releases because they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand, but we're talking about less than less than 10% in a year what all iDevices do in a quarter. [@]pazuzu[/@]'s argument should be able to stand up on it's own regardless of how Apple attempts to peddle ?Watch to the masses, if it's really that much of a crap product.
And make billions doing it. They cater to people who couldn’t care less about hardware and just want good products. They’re the only ones who make ANY money, aren’t they?
Just like Apple.
Because, again, apps don’t make any sense there.
Catering to people who don't care about hardware and just want good products worked wonders for the Wii. It was extremely innovative and it sold extremely well. However, the last few years have not been so kind to Nintendo and the Wii-U is far from a hit. Back when the Wii came out, they made up for the weaker graphics with an innovative controller. That's not working so well for them these days. They are definitely long overdue for a hardware upgrade, whatever that means. I think the fact that Nintendo's customer base doesn't care about cutting edge graphics aligns them quite well with Apple in that both Apple and Nintendo customers care more about the overall experience than the best graphics possible. If Apple TV became the new Nintendo game console and Nintendo games became iOS exclusive, I think it would be a huge hit. Nintendo would probably add a lot more value to Apple, especially long run, than Beats (not that I'm a Beats hater or disapprove of Apple having bought them).
As for apps not making sense on Apple TV, I think you're totally wrong there and can't see the huge opportunity. Games for starters. Are you telling me that games don't make sense? Really? So many people want Apple to "reinvent" TV and we keep reading all these articles about Apple and the media companies struggling to come to terms. Screw them. Just open Apple TV to apps and let the market sort itself out. Let independent producers produce content and sell it via their apps with in-app purchases. Let local news channels create Apple TV apps. Let developers create cool web cam apps. There are many types of apps that would benefit from the large TV screen. Virtual travel tours. Educational apps. I can imagine all kinds of fun, interactive experiences where people could collaborate and play together around a big screen in the living room. Do you think apps on a tiny little watch screen make more sense than apps on a giant TV screen? I don't.
Why would you exclude China (or any other country) when talking about unit sales? It's about the success of a product so every nation they are able to sell in should be included. Over the years we've seen Apple reduce the number of countries out of the gate and stagger their releases because they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand, but we're talking about less than less than 10% in a year what all iDevices do in a quarter. @pazuzu's argument should be able to stand up on it's own regardless of how Apple attempts to peddle ?Watch to the masses, if it's really that much of a crap product.
You're right. I was still stuck on this piece of bs:
10 million in the first year would be the fastest selling Apple product in its history.
Why would you exclude China (or any other country) when talking about unit sales? It's about the success of a product so every nation they are able to sell in should be included. Over the years we've seen Apple reduce the number of countries out of the gate and stagger their releases because they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand, but we're talking about less than less than 10% in a year what all iDevices do in a quarter. @pazuzu's argument should be able to stand up on it's own regardless of how Apple attempts to peddle ?Watch to the masses, if it's really that much of a crap product.
I remember not that long ago seeing AI members poo pooing the Note as being a niche product for selling only 5 million in a quarter (I seem to recall sog35 being one of the people denigrating the Note for selling such low numbers).
At least now I know that things have changed and selling 2.5 million per quarter is no longer niche and is now considered a massive amount.
To be clear Nintendo is NOT behind in hardware. They are also the only company innovating in the gaming industry.
Sony/MS' controllers, consoles and games are all copycats of Nintendo's work.
Heck even Steve Jobs wanted to copy the Wii remote idea for AppleTV.
But like Apple, tech blogs and journalists love to sh** on Nintendo and people eat that up.
Nintendo's marketing is GARBAGE. If Apple bought them we would see a clash of amazing game leaders and engineers and good marketing.
Look, I love Nintendo, but anyone who isn't hopelessly biased can see that their hardware is pretty long in the tooth. The Wii's weaker graphics were made up for with a great controller and game experience. And it sold like crazy for the first few years. The Wii-U hasn't done nearly as well. I don't think Nintendo's marketing is the problem either. It might not be great, but they have much bigger problems. For starters, smartphones are eating into the portable game console market. This will only continue. And gaming consoles are becoming home hubs.
If Apple TV became the next Nintendo console and Nintendo games became iOS exclusive, it would be a marriage made in heaven. Furthermore, Nintendo's R&D surely has all kinds of cool things in the works that would align with what Apple is doing. Apple paid 3 BILLION dollars for a fancy, fad-ish headphone company. Nintendo would add much greater value. The video game market is enormous and Nintendo's established franchises are much loved.
I have no idea how well the two corporate cultures would mix (if at all), but I do think an Apple-Nintendo marriage, combined with an upgraded Apple TV with apps, gaming, and game rentals, could be a huge winner.
You're right. I hadn't realized Jobs desire for the then 1% of the 1B handset market was missed, and by quite a bit. It looks like they only sold just under 6M in the first four quarters. Now if you take the four calendar or fiscal quarters of 2008 you get over 10M, but I don't recall that being what he meant.
720k sold, for the entire year of 2014, and that's ALL of them combined! How laughable. How pathetic. How embarrassing. What an epic fail.
Well if you own an android watch, at least you're not lonely, but there're 719,999 others by your side...lol.
Seriously, I live in Silicon Valley and I see almost every gadget around, but for the entire 2014 and until last week, I have seen only 2 Android watches on people wrists: Moto 360 in Dec 2014 and Samsung Gear Fit last week...
How can you have a "sports watch" that isn't waterproof- no- make that water resistant? You have to take it off every time you get in a shower! Apple needs to call it- "near- water resistant".
This thing get more laughable the more I read about it.
If you consider taking a shower as sport, you're sick.
10 million is massive considering you need an iphone5 or newer to use the watch. The addressable market is only about 400 million ( those who own iphone5 or newer) while the ipad and iphone had an addressable market of billions.
I don't even bet it at 10 millions, I would say Apple will crush 15 millions too. Look at the failure of android gears out there. Do you know why? The answer is: there's a better watch (with Apple logo) coming. Why didn't Swiss watch makers pay attentions to android gears while they're now scared of Apple watch? It's because Apple make the best product with best user experience. I had some friends who never wear watches, but they said they would buy it.
Apple don't just prepare supplies of 60 million units for no reason.
Why not just say it'll do better than the previous winner of the fastest selling CE accessory, the Kinect, instead of comparing it to a mature product for which it accessorizes?
The WiiU was a leviathan mistake in naming and marketing alone. In every other way it was a laudable improvement to the Wii.
Oh, tens of billions in profit for both Apple and Nintendo. No question about it. Nintendo could release their entire console back library on iOS (up through GameCube right now) and have it stream directly to an Apple TV. And their entire portable library for direct iOS play. Heck, release the stuff for OS X, too.
As for apps not making sense on Apple TV, I think you're totally wrong there and can't see the huge opportunity. Games for starters. Are you telling me that games don't make sense? Really?
Of course not. Apps don’t.
It’s a television. You have to make things suitable for a television. All existing video content apps, most games–absolutely viable. But most of everything else? The other hundreds of thousands of potential things to have (not just existing apps, but their content and purpose)? No point. That’s why having an “App Store” on the Apple TV is stupid. “App” connotes a far wider variety of things that would be useful or intelligent to have on a television.
I’ve always made the distinction here of Channels (capital C). Content designed for the television. You’d have the existing video apps (Channels), a Channel for games (single channel on the Springboard to avoid clutter, open it and you’d have your entire game catalogue listed and searchable separately), and then all new Channels with content based on TV content.
Meaning either 1:1 copies of existing TV channels (like the CBS option on Apple TV now) or entirely new broadcasting content options created specifically for the Apple TV as a cable/satellite killer.
I just want to make the distinction because it’s important the Apple TV be the best of what it’s supposed to be. Not just a pathetic catch-all of any “app” content.
Obligatory shameless and partially related plug for my idea of Video iAds–interactive advertisements that replace the standard OTA advertisement stream and which would make people WANT to not skip ads due to the extra information, linkability, and content presentable therein.
Selling 5 million phones in a quarter is niche since the smartphone market is mature and especially since apple was selling 50 million phones in a quarter. The wearables market is just beginning so you cant compare unit sales to phones sales in 2013 which had total units nearing a billion.
Even the ipad which was apples fastest selling product ever only sold 14 million in its first year. And anyone could buy an ipad. Only iphone 5 and newer users can use the watch. So yes 10 million sales would be massive.
I would be willing to up my bet to 15 million, making it the fastest selling apple hardware ever. But i thing Pazuzu would still chicken out because deep in his heart he knows the watch will be a massive success.
If you're willing to move the goalposts this far before the watch is sold, I can only guess how far they'll be moved once it's on the market.
I'll up my bet to 15 million, which would be the fastest selling apple product EVER.
Now you have no excuse to refuse my bet. You said the watch would be an utter failure. So how can an utter and massive FAILURE be the fastest selling apple product ever?
Its time to man up or no one will respect your opinion. Everone has a right to an opinion but when one fails to back it up, questions need to be asked about hidden motives. If you truely beleive the watch is horrible you would take my bet without hesitation.
I'll take that without hesitation.
[ @pazuzu - I know you're here just to grind everyone's gears, pazuzu, and it's probably just a sport for you, but why not up the ante a bit and take one of these bets. You're not trying to tell me that it would actually affect you if you were wrong, are you? If that's true then hmmmmmmmm... ]
Of course not. Apps don’t.
It’s a television. You have to make things suitable for a television. All existing video content apps, most games–absolutely viable. But most of everything else? The other hundreds of thousands of potential things to have (not just existing apps, but their content and purpose)? No point. That’s why having an “App Store” on the Apple TV is stupid. “App” connotes a far wider variety of things that would be useful or intelligent to have on a television.
I’ve always made the distinction here of Channels (capital C). Content designed for the television. You’d have the existing video apps (Channels), a Channel for games (single channel on the Springboard to avoid clutter, open it and you’d have your entire game catalogue listed and searchable separately), and then all new Channels with content based on TV content.
Meaning either 1:1 copies of existing TV channels (like the CBS option on Apple TV now) or entirely new broadcasting content options created specifically for the Apple TV as a cable/satellite killer.
I just want to make the distinction because it’s important the Apple TV be the best of what it’s supposed to be. Not just a pathetic catch-all of any “app” content.
Too limited in vision. Why limit anything? Why limit someone's creativity? Yes, it's a television. And what is a television? A big screen. What do you call Beats Music on the Apple TV? iCloud Photos? I call them apps. What about weather? I'd love to look at high def radar images on my TV. Maybe Facebook creates an app that only displays images and videos. Interactive news apps. The possibilities are endless and the platform certainly doesn't deserve to be crippled by limiting it to "channels" (how old school and boring) and a separate games area.
Why shouldn't I be able to turn on the TV in my bedroom as I'm getting dressed in the morning and say "Siri, show me my day today" and have a "day view" appear on the screen? A lot of people have Apple TVs connected to their home stereo systems. Why no Pandora or Spotify? I do a lot of long distance backpacking. I'd love to view my tracked routes on my TV, maybe watch a 3D fly-through. Google Earth. Maybe I have my friends over after a trip and there's some kind of interactive travel journal I can show them. Maybe they can subscribe to my interactive travel journal on their Apple TVs at home? I could go on and on...
I think you've missed something terribly important. The TV is the one screen we use TOGETHER. We gather around it. Computer, phone, watch, tablet...these are all things we use alone. Limiting it to "channels" isn't innovative at all. Limiting it period isn't innovative. Open the platform and let people create.
What do you call Beats Music on the Apple TV? iCloud Photos? I call them apps. What about weather? I'd love to look at high def radar images on my TV. Maybe Facebook creates an app that only displays images and videos. Interactive news apps. The possibilities are endless and the platform certainly doesn't deserve to be crippled by limiting it to "channels" (how old school and boring) and a separate games area.
And all of that I just covered. In no way is it “crippling” anything.
And yet you want it to show you things for just you… Meanwhile we’ve already covered the togetherness aspect.
It’s easier by far to pick up an iPad, swipe down on the screen, and see what you have up for today.
And all of that I just covered. In no way is it “crippling” anything.
And yet you want it to show you things for just you… Meanwhile we’ve already covered the togetherness aspect.
It’s easier by far to pick up an iPad, swipe down on the screen, and see what you have up for today.
What if you don't have an iPad? You didn't cover anything. You said it should have channels and a separate area for games. I asked what about Beats? What about iCloud Photos? These are APPS. You didn't cover any of that in your earlier post, much less respond to my questions. You were just your usual dismissive self. It's stupid. Because I think so. End of story. Full of yourself much?
And yes, your vision for Apple TV is crippling. It's boring. It's old school. And it shows no vision at all. You want channels. Yawn. I want freedom for developers (and hardware manufacturers) to create cool things. I never said I wanted it to JUST show things for me. I gave a few examples of things it could do that do NOT fall into your utterly uninspired "channels" model.
720k across all vendors for 2 full quarters, one of which includes the holiday quarter is very poor for CE. And that's just shipments. How many of these were returned because they weren't very good or useful? I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher than 50%.
Who doesn’t have an iPad? Your iPhone, then.
Everything you mentioned, yeah.
Did you miss this:
or can you just not read? Did you miss how everyone’s whining about how the Springboard has “too much” crap on it now? Did you miss how Newsstand, iBooks, Music, and Video already do exactly the same thing I’m suggesting here?
Look, I know I’m mentally ill; I can’t remember anything short- or long-term, but don’t dare tell me I’m failing to explain this properly or that I’m taking too much for granted because if I, as pathetic as I am, can comprehend these fundamental things that we have to take for granted to have any sort of conversation, then I’m certain you can, too. Take five seconds to think about things.
And as they’re already on the Apple TV, it’s BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THEY’D STAY THERE. Come on, man; it’s not rocket science. I’m not going to spell everything out in every post. Do you need to know what binary is and how an LCD works to comprehend the next gen Apple TV, too?
No, it’s fundamentally different and allows for the mythical a la carte television programming that will be the death of traditional presentations. Your lack of comprehension does not change that.
Because, what, your day view wouldn’t show up as a channel on the Springboard? Yeah, I’m sure of that¡
Now, I do still like the Ticker I originally proposed in a really old mockup I did.
Where your notifications, instead of in a drag-down Notification Center (I did this before that existed, anyway), would show up in a scrolling Ticker (you could scroll it manually and highlighting an item would give more information in a popup; click, then, to perform a relevant action regarding it) at the bottom of the UI. Just like news channels since 2001.
Now that’s one way it wouldn’t be a Channel, but come on.
And I don’t care that they decided to perform genocide on skeuomorphism; I still really like Linen and Cotton (the fabric backgrounds Apple used to use).
Who doesn’t have an iPad? Your iPhone, then.
Everything you mentioned, yeah.
Did you miss this:
or can you just not read? Did you miss how everyone’s whining about how the Springboard has “too much” crap on it now? Did you miss how Newsstand, iBooks, Music, and Video already do exactly the same thing I’m suggesting here?
Look, I know I’m mentally ill; I can’t remember anything short- or long-term, but don’t dare tell me I’m failing to explain this properly or that I’m taking too much for granted because if I, as pathetic as I am, can comprehend these fundamental things that we have to take for granted to have any sort of conversation, then I’m certain you can, too. Take five seconds to think about things.
And as they’re already on the Apple TV, it’s BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THEY’D STAY THERE. Come on, man; it’s not rocket science. I’m not going to spell everything out in every post. Do you need to know what binary is and how an LCD works to comprehend the next gen Apple TV, too?
No, it’s fundamentally different and allows for the mythical a la carte television programming that will be the death of traditional presentations. Your lack of comprehension does not change that.
Because, what, your day view wouldn’t show up as a channel on the Springboard? Yeah, I’m sure of that¡
Now, I do still like the Ticker I originally proposed in a really old mockup I did.
Where your notifications, instead of in a drag-down Notification Center (I did this before that existed, anyway), would show up in a scrolling Ticker (you could scroll it manually and highlighting an item would give more information in a popup; click, then, to perform a relevant action regarding it) at the bottom of the UI. Just like news channels since 2001.
Now that’s one way it wouldn’t be a Channel, but come on.
And I don’t care that they decided to perform genocide on skeuomorphism; I still really like Linen and Cotton (the fabric backgrounds Apple used to use).
So Beats and iCloud Photos can stay, but Pandora and Spotify are stupid? I can read just fine. Your idea for Apple TV is weak. It makes no sense to limit the platform. A TV is just another screen in one's home. Allow hardware manufacturers to create controllers for it. Allow developers to write apps for it. You haven't given one single reason why an App Store is "stupid". You've just dismissed it because YOU don't like it. I'll take you seriously when you actually give solid REASONS instead of just being dismissive.
As for an a la carte model, nothing you've said enables that. You're just hung up on only allowing video content and games onto the device. I'm in favor of letting people create whatever they want for the device. By your logic, the iPhone shouldn't allow anything that isn't communications related. Because, after all, a phone is for communicating and nothing else! Just like a TV is for watching video content and nothing else! Mentally ill indeed.
Oooooooo. A Ticker. How innovative!
And, for the record, I'm not against the idea of channels. In fact, I think channels make sense. They'd be one of the things you'd download from the App Store. When I think of a channel, I think of content being fed to me. But I wouldn't call an Amazon Prime Video app a channel. Nor would I call Netflix a channel. Nor would I call an independent producer's app that allows one to rent content a channel.