I have this dream about the iWatch. The band could be where certain sensors are incorporated. So a diabetic would buy the iWatch body/face with the diabetic sensor band. That band might cost a pretty penny and be subsidized by insurance. A fitness junkie or athlete buys the sports band. Someone who merely wants an iWatch for its notifications capabilities and ability to run their iPhone Apps remotely would get the band with no special sensors. And some folks will get multiple bands, sports band for the daytime, dress band for evening, different colors, etc. and perhaps all the bands incorporate the battery, so when you switch bands you get a full charge (presumably your extra bands are stored atop your included inductive charger).
The holes for those pins are clearly shown in at least one of Apple's videos that show how the three metals are engineered. I was looking for them and saw them in one of those videos; I think the video on the Stainless Steel watch, but I can't be sure. Watch all three and you'll see them.
Interesting. However, don't discount the fact that the videos would more than likely have been using prototype models in some instances. Again, I don't have confirmation one way or the other ... just saying.
I'm curious how you arrive at that figure and I mean a real fully functioning smart watch not a silly fit band trinket or similar. After all the comparison would have to compare like with like fair enough. The CEA projects that shipments of smart watches will increase from 600,000 units and $95 million in sales in 2013 to 960,000 units and $177 million of revenue in 2014. Long term, Gartner Research predicts that by 2018 smart watch sales will reach 214 million devices with revenue of $60 billion.
The link provided gives numbers.
6.8m total
1.2m Samsung Galaxy Gears
0.7m Pebbles
Comparable numbers of Moto 360s and LG watches..
Fitbits and similar devices included.
These are figures from the Smartwatch Group, who consider these "trinkets" to be smartwatches.
If you want anyone to take your bet then you should probably define exactly what you're betting.
how many R&D dollars did Apple spend developing the Watch? Can the watch makers spend the same amount with an uncertain ROI?
Again all valid points. We'll just have to see how this shakes out. I don't see it as the demise of the traditional watchmaker at all, but I also see they have to adapt in some way to include some of the technologies Apple is offering.
On the other hand ... I'll admit I'm so focused on the ?Watch, that I'm completely overlooking the possibility that the most basic and desirable aspects of Apple's watch can be incorporated into many different types of wearables. Necklaces, broaches, rings, and earnings, glasses, and pens, among other wearable items. When I first heard about the ?Watch I imagined I might get one to carry in my pocket, off the band (not wanting to wear a watch) just for use with ?Pay, until I discovered it needed to be re-authenticated when removed from the wrist. But how about putting a touch ID sensor on the back of it? It could make for a lovely pendant. Either way, there's a million ways to skin this cat while leaving the traditional wristwatch completely untouched.
Again all valid points. We'll just have to see how this shakes out. I don't see it as the demise of the traditional watchmaker at all, but I also see they have to adapt in some way to include some of the technologies Apple is offering.
On the other hand ... I'll admit I'm so focused on the ?Watch, that I'm completely overlooking the possibility that the most basic and desirable aspects of Apple's watch can be incorporated into many different types of wearables. Necklaces, broaches, rings, and earnings, glasses, and pens, among other wearable items. When I first heard about the ?Watch I imagined I might get one to carry in my pocket, off the band (not wanting to wear a watch) just for use with ?Pay, until I discovered it needed to be re-authenticated when removed from the wrist. But how about putting a touch ID sensor on the back of it? It could make for a lovely pendant. Either way, there's a million ways to skin this cat while leaving the traditional wristwatch completely untouched.
I really like, and agree, how Jon Gruber put it.
The angle for mechanical watchmakers is to double down on what they already have going for them: tradition, distinction, mechanical elegance. We’re surrounded by computing devices already. It’s nice to have something purely mechanical as a break. That’s the angle.
I do like your way of thinking, though. A wearable doesn’t necessarily need to be a watch.
I know about a dozen people that are buying it immediately. Most, if not all, are getting the Sport version, and now the Edition (I guess I don't know the right people ). I couple want the SS version but I'm not sure if they are committed to it since they want one of the metal bands which cost considerably more. If Apple had announced an upgrade path they would probably jump on it without hesitation. I think one would even have bought Edition, and I know a couple that would buy Edition if they offered a precise metal other than yellow or rose gold.
I'm still not sold. I'll have to put it through it's paces first in the store. If I do like it I think I'll buy the black 42mm Sport.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the band will be forwards compatible so buying a really expensive band will still be a solid investment ie all one has to do is swap out the actual "smart watch case and innards" the SS band will slot into any new watch that comes out for say 10 years at least and perhaps a jeweler can remove the ends of the band to fit any new linkage if the shape of the case slot does change in future
1.2m Samsung Galaxy Gears
0.7m Pebbles
Comparable numbers of Moto 360s and LG watches..
Fitbits and similar devices included.
These are figures from the Smartwatch Group, who consider these "trinkets" to be smartwatches.
If you want anyone to take your bet then you should probably define exactly what you're betting.
Okay I'm game, I would say 2million , I don't consider the fitbits as smart watches thats ridiculous and neither the moto360 nor LG for that matter either. Crickey those watches don't even have a touch screen . As usual you and you ilk are stretching the envelope
When it doesn't need the iPhone anymore, when it communicates directly to iCloud, it'll be great. Give it 5-7 years. I think it's the most well designed smart watch so far. The dependancy of the iPhone is a downer though.
I do recall similar phases with the iPod, iPhone and iPad all first needing a PC to get synced up with iTunes. People bitched and moaned and said this was evidence that they would fail. Clearly, Apple introduces each new major product category in this way; needing to tether to a parent device for at least the first iteration or so. I don't know why anyone is surprised with this. I have no idea whether the Watch will be as big of a success as the others, but it sure is unique and an upheaval of an existing category, just like the three before it.
Okay I'm game, I would say 2million , I don't consider the fitbits as smart watches thats ridiculous and neither the moto360 nor LG for that matter either. Crickey those watches don't even have a touch screen . As usual you and you ilk are stretching the envelope
I quoted figures that AppleInsider published, so less of the "you and your ilk" thanks very much. You didn't quote any figures or define your terms at all.
And the Moto 360 and LG G aren't smartwatches? In what universe? They most certainly do have touch screens (the Pebble doesn't, if that matters so much to you) so I think it's you that are stretching the envelope.
According to this article, discounting Fitbit as they are not a smartwatch, 4.2m "smartwatches" were sold in 2014. I don't see these numbers being a problem for Apple to take over after a very short time. To be honest, I didn't realise the numbers were that small. I expect Apple to take over any single supplier by the day they release the Apple Watch (in short I expect pre-orders and first day buys to account for more than 1.2m).
Looking at those small numbers, how do these companies make any money? Especially considering they are very cheap in comparison to the Apple Watch entry level price, what do they have to do, drop them to under $100 to drive up sales? I see they are doing that already.
Will the wearable market be defined by software or hardware?
No doubt it will be a combination of both to find the perfect spot, but while I am talking about hardware, and more specifically it's SOC. We've not been told much about the S1 yet, but what is it likely to have? Reports suggest that performance-wise, it's comparable with an A5 chip (iPhone 4s/iPad 2). Surely the new chip won't run at 800Mhz and is more likely to run at a slower clockspeed to extend battery life. Will it 32 or 64bit? Will it come with 512Mb of RAM? And although there are reports that it will ship with 8Gb of storage, will this in fact be the case?
I don't see these numbers being a problem for Apple to take over after a very short time. To be honest, I didn't realise the numbers were that small.
The numbers may be small for a reason, which has nothing to do with build-quality, ease of use, or functionality. There's no doubt that Apple has raised the bar for a nascent industry that has yet to fully realize it's potential. But for a market that so far has been primarily targeted around fitness enthusiasts, and general movement toward healthier living, I don't really see the demand for a high end jewelry quality device such that Appleis ringing to market.
That's not to say they won't sell a lot, because it is a very cool device despite its limitations. Certainly if I were in the market for a fitness tracker, and money was not an issue, the ?Watch would be at the top of my lists (assuming I didn't want it for swimming). But as you've already pointed out, the demand for fitness trackers hasn't been exactly earthshaking. As for the business use side of it, that to me seems like more of a "geek" thing -- I.e. Tech oriented guys will see the merit and adopt it for the boardroom. How many people see it this way initially is a real unknown, but again, the demand for this kind of thing so far has been low.
As others have mentioned, it seems like Apple threw everything into the watch but the kitchen sink. It's an incredibly impressive array of tech for first generation device. There's something for almost everyone, and it strikes me as a way to hedge their bets. There's not much left to add to it ... A FaceTime camera, GPS, making it more autonomous... So for anyone considering a smart watch for any reason (includng current offerings are not fashionable enough), they will likely consider the ?Watch depending on their budget. And yet others will buy it simply because Apple made it and the price of entry is not unreasonably high.
But will this be enough to sell more than all the other smart watches/fitness trackers sold last year? Probably. But how much more? I'm not convinced the mass market yet exists for ?Watch to join the ranks of the iPhone and iPad launch. But I do agree, the promise of the smart wearable is greater than current demand. Once the ?Watch can unlock everybody's car, serve as various forms of ID, and more people are living in smart homes than aren't, then it's true potential for market adoption will surface, and Apple will be poised to grab the lions share of it. Until then, I feel like Apple is dependant on the same fitness crowd, and tethered executives who live for their notifications, the same ones who are currently largely ignoring the smart wearable market. This could go either way initially.
The numbers may be small for a reason, which has nothing to do with build-quality, ease of use, or functionality. There's no doubt that Apple has raised the bar for a nascent industry that has yet to fully realize it's potential. But for a market that so far has been primarily targeted around fitness enthusiasts, and general movement toward healthier living, I don't really see the demand for a high end jewelry quality device such that Appleis ringing to market.
That's not to say they won't sell a lot, because it is a very cool device despite its limitations. Certainly if I were in the market for a fitness tracker, and money was not an issue, the ?Watch would be at the top of my lists (assuming I didn't want it for swimming). But as you've already pointed out, the demand for fitness trackers hasn't been exactly earthshaking. As for the business use side of it, that to me seems like more of a "geek" thing -- I.e. Tech oriented guys will see the merit and adopt it for the boardroom. How many people see it this way initially is a real unknown, but again, the demand for this kind of thing so far has been low.
As others have mentioned, it seems like Apple threw everything into the watch but the kitchen sink. It's an incredibly impressive array of tech for first generation device. There's something for almost everyone, and it strikes me as a way to hedge their bets. There's not much left to add to it ... A FaceTime camera, GPS, making it more autonomous... So for anyone considering a smart watch for any reason (includng current offerings are not fashionable enough), they will likely consider the ?Watch depending on their budget. And yet others will buy it simply because Apple made it and the price of entry is not unreasonably high.
But will this be enough to sell more than all the other smart watches/fitness trackers sold last year? Probably. But how much more? I'm not convinced the mass market yet exists for ?Watch to join the ranks of the iPhone and iPad launch. But I do agree, the promise of the smart wearable is greater than current demand. Once the ?Watch can unlock everybody's car, serve as various forms of ID, and more people are living in smart homes than aren't, then it's true potential for market adoption will surface, and Apple will be poised to grab the lions share of it. Until then, I feel like Apple is dependant on the same fitness crowd, and tethered executives who live for their notifications, the same ones who are currently largely ignoring the smart wearable market. This could go either way initially.
I agree to an extent, the Apple Watch in its current form will not sell anywhere near iPhone/iPad numbers, although I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it may sell between 10-20m units til the end of the year.
I also agree with what Apple has flung into this version of the Watch. Although I'm not sure about cameras on smartwatches at all, but certainly a GPS could have pushed it even further.
The bonus I see with the Apple Watch compared to most if not all of the competition is that they seem to have managed to create a smart wearable that works as a fitness tracker, provides the business/communications market with an effective tool and is housed in a device that's beautiful to wear all day. What we may see is consumers that possibly send $500 on a decent watch and then a further $100 on a fitness tracker, will maybe just spend the same money on the Watch that does both and more.
@Mac_128 what's your take on lifecycle of the Watch? When do you think we will see v2.0 and technically, how long should be expect to get from the Watch?
I reckon, late next year for v2.0 and think we will see a 3-4 year lifetime for the device, maybe similar to the iPad.
The numbers may be small for a reason, which has nothing to do with build-quality, ease of use, or functionality. There's no doubt that Apple has raised the bar for a nascent industry that has yet to fully realize it's potential. But for a market that so far has been primarily targeted around fitness enthusiasts, and general movement toward healthier living, I don't really see the demand for a high end jewelry quality device such that Appleis ringing to market.
That's not to say they won't sell a lot, because it is a very cool device despite its limitations. Certainly if I were in the market for a fitness tracker, and money was not an issue, the ?Watch would be at the top of my lists (assuming I didn't want it for swimming). But as you've already pointed out, the demand for fitness trackers hasn't been exactly earthshaking. As for the business use side of it, that to me seems like more of a "geek" thing -- I.e. Tech oriented guys will see the merit and adopt it for the boardroom. How many people see it this way initially is a real unknown, but again, the demand for this kind of thing so far has been low.
As others have mentioned, it seems like Apple threw everything into the watch but the kitchen sink. It's an incredibly impressive array of tech for first generation device. There's something for almost everyone, and it strikes me as a way to hedge their bets. There's not much left to add to it ... A FaceTime camera, GPS, making it more autonomous... So for anyone considering a smart watch for any reason (includng current offerings are not fashionable enough), they will likely consider the ?Watch depending on their budget. And yet others will buy it simply because Apple made it and the price of entry is not unreasonably high.
But will this be enough to sell more than all the other smart watches/fitness trackers sold last year? Probably. But how much more? I'm not convinced the mass market yet exists for ?Watch to join the ranks of the iPhone and iPad launch. But I do agree, the promise of the smart wearable is greater than current demand. Once the ?Watch can unlock everybody's car, serve as various forms of ID, and more people are living in smart homes than aren't, then it's true potential for market adoption will surface, and Apple will be poised to grab the lions share of it. Until then, I feel like Apple is dependant on the same fitness crowd, and tethered executives who live for their notifications, the same ones who are currently largely ignoring the smart wearable market. This could go either way initially.
Great post though I'm not sure it's just executives that use notifications. I like being informed of stock changes not sure though if that's a mass market thing. I really think that the ability to count steps using it is huge and simply having a watch face too, I miss not having a watch and I bet others do too having to fish the phone out of my pocket simply to check the time is a burden. I would not underestimate that fact. I think the totality of messaging, watch face, haptic feedback and health , plus apple pay will be very telling. Does the act of holding the watch from a vertical arm position to wearers head turn on and display the time? And I assume it's turns off after returning ones arm to the side of the body . Hopefully the accelerometer is clever enough to distinguish between say walking, running , cycling etc and doesn't turn on display when inappropriate? I trust apple to get this sort of thing right , something I can't with the other manufacturers.
Will the wearable market be defined by software or hardware?
No doubt it will be a combination of both to find the perfect spot, but while I am talking about hardware, and more specifically it's SOC. We've not been told much about the S1 yet, but what is it likely to have? Reports suggest that performance-wise, it's comparable with an A5 chip (iPhone 4s/iPad 2). Surely the new chip won't run at 800Mhz and is more likely to run at a slower clockspeed to extend battery life. Will it 32 or 64bit? Will it come with 512Mb of RAM? And although there are reports that it will ship with 8Gb of storage, will this in fact be the case?
Yes! I think the typical consumer will simply ask themselves the all important question before purchasing the aWatch:
How long will my aWatch be relevant in this high tech/fast paced world?
For that reason, I'm anticipating that sales will be tempered until real life reviews answers this question...which will lead to higher sales but not phenomenal... until it evolves to 2nd generation and the masses are more comfortable/confident with how long their watch will be relevant/highly functional.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/175514/Mac-128" style="display:inline-block;">@Mac_128</a>
what's your take on lifecycle of the Watch? When do you think we will see v2.0 and technically, how long should be expect to get from the Watch?
I've been speculating about this on other threads, but it really all depends on what Apple thinks they're selling. If it's just a really nice smart watch, then yes I could see it being similar to the iPad. Although I think Apple would try hard to get updates out by April every year to capitalize on graduations, perhaps the single time of the year when the most watches are sold. But certainly in time for Christmas works too. You have to imagine that despite all the effort to bring this first watch to market, the 2G model has been right there on the drawing boards being developed right along side of it, and have now turned their whole team toward it. The heavy lifting mostly being done -- which is the software.
But if Apple truly intends to enter the same fashion-centric business as the mainstream watch business, then they will have to update it stylistically more frequently, perhaps twice a year. The rumour that new case materials and bands might come out by the fall is just such an indication (though I wouldn't expect any new tech upgrades).. But I DO expect to see a material update to the watch design itself annually, with last years model sticking around for at least one more year if not two, with a corresponding price reduction to increase the user base. At a minimum I expect Apple will try to slim the watch down every year, if not introduce other shapes or designs. If they hit upon a model so popular, like the Rolex Submariner, then perhaps that design might become a staple lasting for years.
But again, that's only if Apple has decided that they are getting into the watch business, rather than the iPhone accessory business.
I'm glad you brought up 3M because it is a great example of a company not afraid of going off into different markets like Apple. 3M's first product was FLYPAPER. Imagine where they'd be today if they'd have not ventured further afield. The flypaper made them more interested in adhesives, and in some ways, adhesives are a part of much of what they do; from Scotch tape to post-it Notes. Apple has shown an affinity for finding niches around their core competentcies and some, like the phone and watch seem to scare/alarm/bother some of the analysts sitting on the sidelines like crows, making a lot of noise, but lack the business abilities to do what they are so inclined to tell others they should do.
I like the comparison, but that's not 3M's history at all. 3M started as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company mining corundum, which failed to happen but the company did make a go of sandpaper and grinding products. Then they struck on the strategy of developing new products for old niches and the rest is history.
ha! tell us what you really think! one question I do think you glossed over with your dismissal of "all Americans drink the same Coke".
In the past there was a more deliberate democratic quality to Apple's products. this noticeably changed with the iPhone 5c. For the first time Apple offered a conspicuous "economy" choice. Sure, in the past I could wield more horsepower under the hood than my more economically minded brethren, but the 5c introduced a sort of class system to the lineup.
I'm not going to judge the wisdom or success of this step. You've made strong arguments in the past that the 5c is plenty successful. But I do sense a loss of some sort by the introduction of this class system - Apple abandoning a hint of hippie/utopian gleam from its image.
The presence of Apple Edition magnifies this loss. It may be good business, but the ineffable loss is real and where it leads is hard to track.
Comments
I had a dream...
About Apple incorporating smart watch bands into the Watch design. Here's my post from April 2014 on the topic:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/178071/apple-to-sell-two-sizes-of-iwatch-with-flexible-amoled-displays-this-fall-prices-to-reach-thousands-of-dollars#post_2513582
In full:
I have this dream about the iWatch. The band could be where certain sensors are incorporated. So a diabetic would buy the iWatch body/face with the diabetic sensor band. That band might cost a pretty penny and be subsidized by insurance. A fitness junkie or athlete buys the sports band. Someone who merely wants an iWatch for its notifications capabilities and ability to run their iPhone Apps remotely would get the band with no special sensors. And some folks will get multiple bands, sports band for the daytime, dress band for evening, different colors, etc. and perhaps all the bands incorporate the battery, so when you switch bands you get a full charge (presumably your extra bands are stored atop your included inductive charger).
"functional" bands...yes!!
The holes for those pins are clearly shown in at least one of Apple's videos that show how the three metals are engineered. I was looking for them and saw them in one of those videos; I think the video on the Stainless Steel watch, but I can't be sure. Watch all three and you'll see them.
Interesting. However, don't discount the fact that the videos would more than likely have been using prototype models in some instances. Again, I don't have confirmation one way or the other ... just saying.
I'm curious how you arrive at that figure and I mean a real fully functioning smart watch not a silly fit band trinket or similar. After all the comparison would have to compare like with like fair enough. The CEA projects that shipments of smart watches will increase from 600,000 units and $95 million in sales in 2013 to 960,000 units and $177 million of revenue in 2014. Long term, Gartner Research predicts that by 2018 smart watch sales will reach 214 million devices with revenue of $60 billion.
The link provided gives numbers.
6.8m total
1.2m Samsung Galaxy Gears
0.7m Pebbles
Comparable numbers of Moto 360s and LG watches..
Fitbits and similar devices included.
These are figures from the Smartwatch Group, who consider these "trinkets" to be smartwatches.
If you want anyone to take your bet then you should probably define exactly what you're betting.
how many R&D dollars did Apple spend developing the Watch? Can the watch makers spend the same amount with an uncertain ROI?
Again all valid points. We'll just have to see how this shakes out. I don't see it as the demise of the traditional watchmaker at all, but I also see they have to adapt in some way to include some of the technologies Apple is offering.
On the other hand ... I'll admit I'm so focused on the ?Watch, that I'm completely overlooking the possibility that the most basic and desirable aspects of Apple's watch can be incorporated into many different types of wearables. Necklaces, broaches, rings, and earnings, glasses, and pens, among other wearable items. When I first heard about the ?Watch I imagined I might get one to carry in my pocket, off the band (not wanting to wear a watch) just for use with ?Pay, until I discovered it needed to be re-authenticated when removed from the wrist. But how about putting a touch ID sensor on the back of it? It could make for a lovely pendant. Either way, there's a million ways to skin this cat while leaving the traditional wristwatch completely untouched.
I really like, and agree, how Jon Gruber put it.
I do like your way of thinking, though. A wearable doesn’t necessarily need to be a watch.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the band will be forwards compatible so buying a really expensive band will still be a solid investment ie all one has to do is swap out the actual "smart watch case and innards" the SS band will slot into any new watch that comes out for say 10 years at least and perhaps a jeweler can remove the ends of the band to fit any new linkage if the shape of the case slot does change in future
Okay I'm game, I would say 2million , I don't consider the fitbits as smart watches thats ridiculous and neither the moto360 nor LG for that matter either. Crickey those watches don't even have a touch screen . As usual you and you ilk are stretching the envelope
I do recall similar phases with the iPod, iPhone and iPad all first needing a PC to get synced up with iTunes. People bitched and moaned and said this was evidence that they would fail. Clearly, Apple introduces each new major product category in this way; needing to tether to a parent device for at least the first iteration or so. I don't know why anyone is surprised with this. I have no idea whether the Watch will be as big of a success as the others, but it sure is unique and an upheaval of an existing category, just like the three before it.
Okay I'm game, I would say 2million , I don't consider the fitbits as smart watches thats ridiculous and neither the moto360 nor LG for that matter either. Crickey those watches don't even have a touch screen . As usual you and you ilk are stretching the envelope
I quoted figures that AppleInsider published, so less of the "you and your ilk" thanks very much. You didn't quote any figures or define your terms at all.
And the Moto 360 and LG G aren't smartwatches? In what universe? They most certainly do have touch screens (the Pebble doesn't, if that matters so much to you) so I think it's you that are stretching the envelope.
According to this article, discounting Fitbit as they are not a smartwatch, 4.2m "smartwatches" were sold in 2014. I don't see these numbers being a problem for Apple to take over after a very short time. To be honest, I didn't realise the numbers were that small. I expect Apple to take over any single supplier by the day they release the Apple Watch (in short I expect pre-orders and first day buys to account for more than 1.2m).
Looking at those small numbers, how do these companies make any money? Especially considering they are very cheap in comparison to the Apple Watch entry level price, what do they have to do, drop them to under $100 to drive up sales? I see they are doing that already.
Will the wearable market be defined by software or hardware?
No doubt it will be a combination of both to find the perfect spot, but while I am talking about hardware, and more specifically it's SOC. We've not been told much about the S1 yet, but what is it likely to have? Reports suggest that performance-wise, it's comparable with an A5 chip (iPhone 4s/iPad 2). Surely the new chip won't run at 800Mhz and is more likely to run at a slower clockspeed to extend battery life. Will it 32 or 64bit? Will it come with 512Mb of RAM? And although there are reports that it will ship with 8Gb of storage, will this in fact be the case?
That's not to say they won't sell a lot, because it is a very cool device despite its limitations. Certainly if I were in the market for a fitness tracker, and money was not an issue, the ?Watch would be at the top of my lists (assuming I didn't want it for swimming). But as you've already pointed out, the demand for fitness trackers hasn't been exactly earthshaking. As for the business use side of it, that to me seems like more of a "geek" thing -- I.e. Tech oriented guys will see the merit and adopt it for the boardroom. How many people see it this way initially is a real unknown, but again, the demand for this kind of thing so far has been low.
As others have mentioned, it seems like Apple threw everything into the watch but the kitchen sink. It's an incredibly impressive array of tech for first generation device. There's something for almost everyone, and it strikes me as a way to hedge their bets. There's not much left to add to it ... A FaceTime camera, GPS, making it more autonomous... So for anyone considering a smart watch for any reason (includng current offerings are not fashionable enough), they will likely consider the ?Watch depending on their budget. And yet others will buy it simply because Apple made it and the price of entry is not unreasonably high.
But will this be enough to sell more than all the other smart watches/fitness trackers sold last year? Probably. But how much more? I'm not convinced the mass market yet exists for ?Watch to join the ranks of the iPhone and iPad launch. But I do agree, the promise of the smart wearable is greater than current demand. Once the ?Watch can unlock everybody's car, serve as various forms of ID, and more people are living in smart homes than aren't, then it's true potential for market adoption will surface, and Apple will be poised to grab the lions share of it. Until then, I feel like Apple is dependant on the same fitness crowd, and tethered executives who live for their notifications, the same ones who are currently largely ignoring the smart wearable market. This could go either way initially.
The numbers may be small for a reason, which has nothing to do with build-quality, ease of use, or functionality. There's no doubt that Apple has raised the bar for a nascent industry that has yet to fully realize it's potential. But for a market that so far has been primarily targeted around fitness enthusiasts, and general movement toward healthier living, I don't really see the demand for a high end jewelry quality device such that Appleis ringing to market.
That's not to say they won't sell a lot, because it is a very cool device despite its limitations. Certainly if I were in the market for a fitness tracker, and money was not an issue, the ?Watch would be at the top of my lists (assuming I didn't want it for swimming). But as you've already pointed out, the demand for fitness trackers hasn't been exactly earthshaking. As for the business use side of it, that to me seems like more of a "geek" thing -- I.e. Tech oriented guys will see the merit and adopt it for the boardroom. How many people see it this way initially is a real unknown, but again, the demand for this kind of thing so far has been low.
As others have mentioned, it seems like Apple threw everything into the watch but the kitchen sink. It's an incredibly impressive array of tech for first generation device. There's something for almost everyone, and it strikes me as a way to hedge their bets. There's not much left to add to it ... A FaceTime camera, GPS, making it more autonomous... So for anyone considering a smart watch for any reason (includng current offerings are not fashionable enough), they will likely consider the ?Watch depending on their budget. And yet others will buy it simply because Apple made it and the price of entry is not unreasonably high.
But will this be enough to sell more than all the other smart watches/fitness trackers sold last year? Probably. But how much more? I'm not convinced the mass market yet exists for ?Watch to join the ranks of the iPhone and iPad launch. But I do agree, the promise of the smart wearable is greater than current demand. Once the ?Watch can unlock everybody's car, serve as various forms of ID, and more people are living in smart homes than aren't, then it's true potential for market adoption will surface, and Apple will be poised to grab the lions share of it. Until then, I feel like Apple is dependant on the same fitness crowd, and tethered executives who live for their notifications, the same ones who are currently largely ignoring the smart wearable market. This could go either way initially.
I agree to an extent, the Apple Watch in its current form will not sell anywhere near iPhone/iPad numbers, although I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it may sell between 10-20m units til the end of the year.
I also agree with what Apple has flung into this version of the Watch. Although I'm not sure about cameras on smartwatches at all, but certainly a GPS could have pushed it even further.
The bonus I see with the Apple Watch compared to most if not all of the competition is that they seem to have managed to create a smart wearable that works as a fitness tracker, provides the business/communications market with an effective tool and is housed in a device that's beautiful to wear all day. What we may see is consumers that possibly send $500 on a decent watch and then a further $100 on a fitness tracker, will maybe just spend the same money on the Watch that does both and more.
@Mac_128 what's your take on lifecycle of the Watch? When do you think we will see v2.0 and technically, how long should be expect to get from the Watch?
I reckon, late next year for v2.0 and think we will see a 3-4 year lifetime for the device, maybe similar to the iPad.
Great post though I'm not sure it's just executives that use notifications. I like being informed of stock changes not sure though if that's a mass market thing. I really think that the ability to count steps using it is huge and simply having a watch face too, I miss not having a watch and I bet others do too having to fish the phone out of my pocket simply to check the time is a burden. I would not underestimate that fact. I think the totality of messaging, watch face, haptic feedback and health , plus apple pay will be very telling. Does the act of holding the watch from a vertical arm position to wearers head turn on and display the time? And I assume it's turns off after returning ones arm to the side of the body . Hopefully the accelerometer is clever enough to distinguish between say walking, running , cycling etc and doesn't turn on display when inappropriate? I trust apple to get this sort of thing right , something I can't with the other manufacturers.
There is no end of this fight between apple and google. In my opinion apple has to go down eventually.
Will the wearable market be defined by software or hardware?
No doubt it will be a combination of both to find the perfect spot, but while I am talking about hardware, and more specifically it's SOC. We've not been told much about the S1 yet, but what is it likely to have? Reports suggest that performance-wise, it's comparable with an A5 chip (iPhone 4s/iPad 2). Surely the new chip won't run at 800Mhz and is more likely to run at a slower clockspeed to extend battery life. Will it 32 or 64bit? Will it come with 512Mb of RAM? And although there are reports that it will ship with 8Gb of storage, will this in fact be the case?
Yes! I think the typical consumer will simply ask themselves the all important question before purchasing the aWatch:
How long will my aWatch be relevant in this high tech/fast paced world?
For that reason, I'm anticipating that sales will be tempered until real life reviews answers this question...which will lead to higher sales but not phenomenal... until it evolves to 2nd generation and the masses are more comfortable/confident with how long their watch will be relevant/highly functional.
But if Apple truly intends to enter the same fashion-centric business as the mainstream watch business, then they will have to update it stylistically more frequently, perhaps twice a year. The rumour that new case materials and bands might come out by the fall is just such an indication (though I wouldn't expect any new tech upgrades).. But I DO expect to see a material update to the watch design itself annually, with last years model sticking around for at least one more year if not two, with a corresponding price reduction to increase the user base. At a minimum I expect Apple will try to slim the watch down every year, if not introduce other shapes or designs. If they hit upon a model so popular, like the Rolex Submariner, then perhaps that design might become a staple lasting for years.
But again, that's only if Apple has decided that they are getting into the watch business, rather than the iPhone accessory business.
Anyway, my two cents.
Quote:
I'm glad you brought up 3M because it is a great example of a company not afraid of going off into different markets like Apple. 3M's first product was FLYPAPER. Imagine where they'd be today if they'd have not ventured further afield. The flypaper made them more interested in adhesives, and in some ways, adhesives are a part of much of what they do; from Scotch tape to post-it Notes. Apple has shown an affinity for finding niches around their core competentcies and some, like the phone and watch seem to scare/alarm/bother some of the analysts sitting on the sidelines like crows, making a lot of noise, but lack the business abilities to do what they are so inclined to tell others they should do.
I like the comparison, but that's not 3M's history at all. 3M started as the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company mining corundum, which failed to happen but the company did make a go of sandpaper and grinding products. Then they struck on the strategy of developing new products for old niches and the rest is history.
Yours
Vern
In the past there was a more deliberate democratic quality to Apple's products. this noticeably changed with the iPhone 5c. For the first time Apple offered a conspicuous "economy" choice. Sure, in the past I could wield more horsepower under the hood than my more economically minded brethren, but the 5c introduced a sort of class system to the lineup.
I'm not going to judge the wisdom or success of this step. You've made strong arguments in the past that the 5c is plenty successful. But I do sense a loss of some sort by the introduction of this class system - Apple abandoning a hint of hippie/utopian gleam from its image.
The presence of Apple Edition magnifies this loss. It may be good business, but the ineffable loss is real and where it leads is hard to track.