And if they do that, what about licensing the software out to watch makers? Rolex designs the case, Apple supplies the software? Because again, if they don't do this, then they have to carry the fashion burden alone -- OR, just ignore it and offer the one design, in two sizes, 6 finishes, and 21 bands, with the expectation that customers either compromise their fashion demands for superior function, or buy something else, as Apple does with all of their products. Or is there another option I'm overlooking?
Other things I might not feel secure in guessing about but I feel very safe in saying that licensing the OS is never going to happen. Apple has not ever felt burdened by making the entire widget before, and in fact they've taken this ability as their strength and advantage. Nothing in this product calls for altering their basic approach. The option you are perhaps overlooking is that Apple isn't interested in trying to produce a product that suits every possible taste. It would be so un-Apple for them to even try.
The option you are perhaps overlooking is that Apple isn't interested in trying to produce a product that suits every possible taste. It would be so un-Apple for them to even try.
Fair enough. But there is a middle ground between selling one product design only, and selling dozens to appeal to everyone possible. The iPhone 6+ is certainly a prime example of offering a format they once vehemently lambasted. Offering a "gold" option. Offering an iPad mini. The watch begs for even more options than a simple phone or tablet, so I expect to see more than one case style offered. But I could be wrong. You are absolutely right that Apple sells itself. Apple products would fly off the shelf even if Apple only offered one flavor per product. So then you have to wonder why go to the expense of a gold option, and a larger format phone, or a mini tablet, all of which arguably cut into their margins? Apple clearly sees a huge market for wearable technology, and feels theres a lot of money to be made in fashion to invest this heavily in it for a product launch. And they could well turn the fashion industry upside down, and the ?Watch will be the ubiquitous "new black". But I doubt even they could do that. And eventually, just like everything else they've done recently, they're not likely going to be satisfied with the narrow piece of the pie they've carved out for themselves and will seek to offer other options to attract those outside the fold. Whether that's 3 or 4, or dozens remains to be seen.
Fair enough. But there is a middle ground between selling one product design only, and selling dozens to appeal to everyone possible. The iPhone 6+ is certainly a prime example of offering a format they once vehemently lambasted. Offering a "gold" option. Offering an iPad mini. The watch begs for even more options than a simple phone or tablet, so I expect to see more than one case style offered. But I could be wrong. You are absolutely right that Apple sells itself. Apple products would fly off the shelf even if Apple only offered one flavor per product. So then you have to wonder why go to the expense of a gold option, and a larger format phone, or a mini tablet, all of which arguably cut into their margins? Apple clearly sees a huge market for wearable technology, and feels theres a lot of money to be made in fashion to invest this heavily in it for a product launch. And they could well turn the fashion industry upside down, and the ?Watch will be the ubiquitous "new black". But I doubt even they could do that. And eventually, just like everything else they've done recently, they're not likely going to be satisfied with the narrow piece of the pie they've carved out for themselves and will seek to offer other options to attract those outside the fold. Whether that's 3 or 4, or dozens remains to be seen.
Your argument essentially defeats itself. The iPhone comes in sizes. So does Apple Watch. The iPhone comes in colors. So does Apple Watch. Same again for the iPad. None of these products are offered in different form factors that fundamentally alter the way information is displayed on them, and the way apps would need to be written to conform. That would be a mess, and margins haven't got a thing to do with it. The future of Apple Watch or Apple wearables in general I could not guess at, but this product for now seems to be generally set in terms of form factor. It's way too soon to declare that Apple "has" to do something different with this product in the future. My guess is even Apple doesn't know that yet.
The iPhone comes in sizes. So does Apple Watch. The iPhone comes in colors. So does Apple Watch. Same again for the iPad. None of these products are offered in different form factors that fundamentally alter the way information is displayed on them, and the way apps would need to be written to conform. That would be a mess, and margins haven't got a thing to do with it.
OK, we've reached the agree to disagree point. But here's where you're missing my point:
How many original iPhone sizes and colors were there? How many original iPad sizes and colors were there? Only one. There is ONE original Apple watch (it's offered in two sizes for the same reason the bands are sold in multiple sizes -- because it has to fit on the body) and color options are additional cost. The bands themselves are little more than the equivalent of iPhone/Pad cases and covers for the device. And the iPhone 5 did introduce a brand new screen size, which required app developers to fundamentally alter the way their apps appeared on the display. The 6 Plus likewise offers yet more options developers have to adjust for. The iPad also adjusts apps to take advantage of different screen orientation and ratio from the iPhone. And we already know by Tim Cook's own admission that the iPad mini cannibalizes the full size iPad, so how can colors not affect margins? They still have to pay more to offer 3 colors instead of one, and they have to manage 3 different supply chains, anticipating demand, and paying for storage if they guess wrong. It's going to be even more costly and complicated for the watch.
Now, none of this touches on the fact that the iPhone an iPad were not introduced as fashion accessories replacing anything otherwise classified as jewelry or clothing, and the watch is. But we've had that conversation, and we clearly disagree.
OK, we've reached the agree to disagree point. But here's where you're missing my point:
How many original iPhone sizes and colors were there? How many original iPad sizes and colors were there? Only one. There is ONE original Apple watch (it's offered in two sizes for the same reason the bands are sold in multiple sizes -- because it has to fit on the body) and color options are additional cost. The bands themselves are little more than the equivalent of iPhone/Pad cases and covers for the device. And the iPhone 5 did introduce a brand new screen size, which required app developers to fundamentally alter the way their apps appeared on the display. The 6 Plus likewise offers yet more options developers have to adjust for. The iPad also adjusts apps to take advantage of different screen orientation and ratio from the iPhone. And we already know by Tim Cook's own admission that the iPad mini cannibalizes the full size iPad, so how can colors not affect margins? They still have to pay more to offer 3 colors instead of one, and they have to manage 3 different supply chains, anticipating demand, and paying for storage if they guess wrong. It's going to be even more costly and complicated for the watch.
Now, none of this touches on the fact that the iPhone an iPad were not introduced as fashion accessories replacing anything otherwise classified as jewelry or clothing, and the watch is. But we've had that conversation, and we clearly disagree.
I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about, except that you are taking Apple Watch as a pure fashion accessory, and I am taking it as intimate technology, which happens to be much closer to the way Apple is describing it. Apple is trying to break the body-technology barrier here, not the fashion barrier. Their primary goal is to make wearable tech friendly and socially acceptable, instead of geeky and creepy, which is the main perception today. Geeks and watch snobs are probably going to hate Apple Watch. By all indications most of them already do without even actually seeing one. That's okay, we've heard it all before, and Apple isn't really courting them anyway (except with the Edition, and we shall see how many of them Apple sells).
In all of this Apple has probably made a tactical error in calling this device a "watch," because as we've seen, it conjures up a class of ancient, single purpose tech. This creates all sort of hangups, primary among them, the shape. Not round, not a watch. Tired of hearing it already.
The change in screen resolutions on the iPad and iPhone required adjustments, but even apps that weren't adjusted to the increased resolution worked fine. Apple made it deliberately easy for developers to handle the screen resolution changes. The take-away point is those changes did not fundamentally alter the interface or form factor of the devices. Rectangular to round would, and the reason for making the change would be wrong.
The take-away point is those changes did not fundamentally alter the interface or form factor of the devices. Rectangular to round would, and the reason for making the change would be wrong.
I think this is what we're disagreeing about. The change from 3.5"-4" screen expanded the space on each side of the screen, which Apple filled with black bars on apps that didn't support the new size. In my mind this is no different than overlaying the square ?Watch display onto a round shape, and putting black bars on the top, bottom and sides to fill the rest of the circle. Developers can easily make use of the outlying space to provide additional information without sacrificing the square nature of reading text in the center.
And the reason for making the change isn't wrong if Apple feels they want to serve a particular customer's needs. It's the whole reason we have 5.5" iPhablets that at one time Apple said was a market they were not interested in selling to. So we'll see.
But I totally agree with you -- it's not a "watch", it's a 'wrist computer'. And as along as Apple doesn't try to replace the "watch" with it, then a single form factor is plenty for their market.
A traditional watch is only round because it was originally designed to look like a clock which was originally designed to look like a sundial. For the last 30 years or more, time pieces have gone digital and a rectangle is what best displays a digital representation of the time. If a person is into tradition and history, then maybe they'll crave the round shape - but the square is more modern, more efficient and more versatile. The Apple Watch is not being marketed to any one group of consumer. It's not a fail if SOME people don't think it's fashionable. There are more than enough combinations of straps and cases that plenty of people will find it to be "fashionable enough". There are also a large number of people who don't give a rats ass about fashion and will be buying one for the functionality, for the cool factor or simply because it has an Apple logo on it. Combined, there is more than enough of a market for this product to make it successful. Is it for everybody? Absolutely not. But show me one product that does have universal appeal. There are billions of people who do not want and will not get the Apple Watch - and they all have very good reasons! Their mistake comes from thinking that the reasons that are important to them will be important to everybody - but they're not. This is Apples first venture into wearable technology and they've chosen a form factor that everyone is familiar with - and they've called it a watch even though it does far more than just tell time. I think this is their way of easing us in to the concept of wearable technology and that in the coming years, we'll see all kinds of radically different devices in the wearable genre. Personally - I like the bracer-style mock up that was circulated a couple of years ago. It had a nice big screen and I thought it was quite fashionable - but I don't think most people would agree. They're not ready for that yet and if Apple had released that now, it would have been ridiculed, unpopular and it would have suffered the same fate as Google Glass.
So, the watch is a stepping stone. After people become comfortable with wearing technology on their wrist, companies (including Apple) will start to push the envelope and create new and different forms of wearable technology that doesn't pretend to be a watch or anything else we've ever heard of - but it will be gradual, comfortable and most people won't even realize it's happening.
A traditional watch is only round because it was originally designed to look like a clock which was originally designed to look like a sundial. For the last 30 years or more, time pieces have gone digital and a rectangle is what best displays a digital representation of the time. If a person is into tradition and history, then maybe they'll crave the round shape - but the square is more modern, more efficient and more versatile.
While I appreciate your particular horological interpretation of round and square watch face development, I'll give you another major reason why the ?Watch is square -- it gives them more room for components and a bigger battery than a round watch at the same case dimensions.
While I appreciate your particular horological interpretation of round and square watch face development, I'll give you another major reason why the ?Watch is square -- it gives them more room for components and a bigger battery than a round watch at the same case dimensions.
While I appreciate your particular horological interpretation of round and square watch face development, I'll give you another major reason why the ?Watch is square -- it gives them more room for components and a bigger battery than a round watch at the same case dimensions.
Comments
And if they do that, what about licensing the software out to watch makers? Rolex designs the case, Apple supplies the software? Because again, if they don't do this, then they have to carry the fashion burden alone -- OR, just ignore it and offer the one design, in two sizes, 6 finishes, and 21 bands, with the expectation that customers either compromise their fashion demands for superior function, or buy something else, as Apple does with all of their products. Or is there another option I'm overlooking?
Other things I might not feel secure in guessing about but I feel very safe in saying that licensing the OS is never going to happen. Apple has not ever felt burdened by making the entire widget before, and in fact they've taken this ability as their strength and advantage. Nothing in this product calls for altering their basic approach. The option you are perhaps overlooking is that Apple isn't interested in trying to produce a product that suits every possible taste. It would be so un-Apple for them to even try.
The option you are perhaps overlooking is that Apple isn't interested in trying to produce a product that suits every possible taste. It would be so un-Apple for them to even try.
Fair enough. But there is a middle ground between selling one product design only, and selling dozens to appeal to everyone possible. The iPhone 6+ is certainly a prime example of offering a format they once vehemently lambasted. Offering a "gold" option. Offering an iPad mini. The watch begs for even more options than a simple phone or tablet, so I expect to see more than one case style offered. But I could be wrong. You are absolutely right that Apple sells itself. Apple products would fly off the shelf even if Apple only offered one flavor per product. So then you have to wonder why go to the expense of a gold option, and a larger format phone, or a mini tablet, all of which arguably cut into their margins? Apple clearly sees a huge market for wearable technology, and feels theres a lot of money to be made in fashion to invest this heavily in it for a product launch. And they could well turn the fashion industry upside down, and the ?Watch will be the ubiquitous "new black". But I doubt even they could do that. And eventually, just like everything else they've done recently, they're not likely going to be satisfied with the narrow piece of the pie they've carved out for themselves and will seek to offer other options to attract those outside the fold. Whether that's 3 or 4, or dozens remains to be seen.
Fair enough. But there is a middle ground between selling one product design only, and selling dozens to appeal to everyone possible. The iPhone 6+ is certainly a prime example of offering a format they once vehemently lambasted. Offering a "gold" option. Offering an iPad mini. The watch begs for even more options than a simple phone or tablet, so I expect to see more than one case style offered. But I could be wrong. You are absolutely right that Apple sells itself. Apple products would fly off the shelf even if Apple only offered one flavor per product. So then you have to wonder why go to the expense of a gold option, and a larger format phone, or a mini tablet, all of which arguably cut into their margins? Apple clearly sees a huge market for wearable technology, and feels theres a lot of money to be made in fashion to invest this heavily in it for a product launch. And they could well turn the fashion industry upside down, and the ?Watch will be the ubiquitous "new black". But I doubt even they could do that. And eventually, just like everything else they've done recently, they're not likely going to be satisfied with the narrow piece of the pie they've carved out for themselves and will seek to offer other options to attract those outside the fold. Whether that's 3 or 4, or dozens remains to be seen.
Your argument essentially defeats itself. The iPhone comes in sizes. So does Apple Watch. The iPhone comes in colors. So does Apple Watch. Same again for the iPad. None of these products are offered in different form factors that fundamentally alter the way information is displayed on them, and the way apps would need to be written to conform. That would be a mess, and margins haven't got a thing to do with it. The future of Apple Watch or Apple wearables in general I could not guess at, but this product for now seems to be generally set in terms of form factor. It's way too soon to declare that Apple "has" to do something different with this product in the future. My guess is even Apple doesn't know that yet.
The iPhone comes in sizes. So does Apple Watch. The iPhone comes in colors. So does Apple Watch. Same again for the iPad. None of these products are offered in different form factors that fundamentally alter the way information is displayed on them, and the way apps would need to be written to conform. That would be a mess, and margins haven't got a thing to do with it.
OK, we've reached the agree to disagree point. But here's where you're missing my point:
How many original iPhone sizes and colors were there? How many original iPad sizes and colors were there? Only one. There is ONE original Apple watch (it's offered in two sizes for the same reason the bands are sold in multiple sizes -- because it has to fit on the body) and color options are additional cost. The bands themselves are little more than the equivalent of iPhone/Pad cases and covers for the device. And the iPhone 5 did introduce a brand new screen size, which required app developers to fundamentally alter the way their apps appeared on the display. The 6 Plus likewise offers yet more options developers have to adjust for. The iPad also adjusts apps to take advantage of different screen orientation and ratio from the iPhone. And we already know by Tim Cook's own admission that the iPad mini cannibalizes the full size iPad, so how can colors not affect margins? They still have to pay more to offer 3 colors instead of one, and they have to manage 3 different supply chains, anticipating demand, and paying for storage if they guess wrong. It's going to be even more costly and complicated for the watch.
Now, none of this touches on the fact that the iPhone an iPad were not introduced as fashion accessories replacing anything otherwise classified as jewelry or clothing, and the watch is. But we've had that conversation, and we clearly disagree.
OK, we've reached the agree to disagree point. But here's where you're missing my point:
How many original iPhone sizes and colors were there? How many original iPad sizes and colors were there? Only one. There is ONE original Apple watch (it's offered in two sizes for the same reason the bands are sold in multiple sizes -- because it has to fit on the body) and color options are additional cost. The bands themselves are little more than the equivalent of iPhone/Pad cases and covers for the device. And the iPhone 5 did introduce a brand new screen size, which required app developers to fundamentally alter the way their apps appeared on the display. The 6 Plus likewise offers yet more options developers have to adjust for. The iPad also adjusts apps to take advantage of different screen orientation and ratio from the iPhone. And we already know by Tim Cook's own admission that the iPad mini cannibalizes the full size iPad, so how can colors not affect margins? They still have to pay more to offer 3 colors instead of one, and they have to manage 3 different supply chains, anticipating demand, and paying for storage if they guess wrong. It's going to be even more costly and complicated for the watch.
Now, none of this touches on the fact that the iPhone an iPad were not introduced as fashion accessories replacing anything otherwise classified as jewelry or clothing, and the watch is. But we've had that conversation, and we clearly disagree.
I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about, except that you are taking Apple Watch as a pure fashion accessory, and I am taking it as intimate technology, which happens to be much closer to the way Apple is describing it. Apple is trying to break the body-technology barrier here, not the fashion barrier. Their primary goal is to make wearable tech friendly and socially acceptable, instead of geeky and creepy, which is the main perception today. Geeks and watch snobs are probably going to hate Apple Watch. By all indications most of them already do without even actually seeing one. That's okay, we've heard it all before, and Apple isn't really courting them anyway (except with the Edition, and we shall see how many of them Apple sells).
In all of this Apple has probably made a tactical error in calling this device a "watch," because as we've seen, it conjures up a class of ancient, single purpose tech. This creates all sort of hangups, primary among them, the shape. Not round, not a watch. Tired of hearing it already.
The change in screen resolutions on the iPad and iPhone required adjustments, but even apps that weren't adjusted to the increased resolution worked fine. Apple made it deliberately easy for developers to handle the screen resolution changes. The take-away point is those changes did not fundamentally alter the interface or form factor of the devices. Rectangular to round would, and the reason for making the change would be wrong.
The take-away point is those changes did not fundamentally alter the interface or form factor of the devices. Rectangular to round would, and the reason for making the change would be wrong.
I think this is what we're disagreeing about. The change from 3.5"-4" screen expanded the space on each side of the screen, which Apple filled with black bars on apps that didn't support the new size. In my mind this is no different than overlaying the square ?Watch display onto a round shape, and putting black bars on the top, bottom and sides to fill the rest of the circle. Developers can easily make use of the outlying space to provide additional information without sacrificing the square nature of reading text in the center.
And the reason for making the change isn't wrong if Apple feels they want to serve a particular customer's needs. It's the whole reason we have 5.5" iPhablets that at one time Apple said was a market they were not interested in selling to. So we'll see.
But I totally agree with you -- it's not a "watch", it's a 'wrist computer'. And as along as Apple doesn't try to replace the "watch" with it, then a single form factor is plenty for their market.
So, the watch is a stepping stone. After people become comfortable with wearing technology on their wrist, companies (including Apple) will start to push the envelope and create new and different forms of wearable technology that doesn't pretend to be a watch or anything else we've ever heard of - but it will be gradual, comfortable and most people won't even realize it's happening.
A traditional watch is only round because it was originally designed to look like a clock which was originally designed to look like a sundial. For the last 30 years or more, time pieces have gone digital and a rectangle is what best displays a digital representation of the time. If a person is into tradition and history, then maybe they'll crave the round shape - but the square is more modern, more efficient and more versatile.
While I appreciate your particular horological interpretation of round and square watch face development, I'll give you another major reason why the ?Watch is square -- it gives them more room for components and a bigger battery than a round watch at the same case dimensions.
While I appreciate your particular horological interpretation of round and square watch face development, I'll give you another major reason why the ?Watch is square -- it gives them more room for components and a bigger battery than a round watch at the same case dimensions.
FWIW, Apple Watch is rectangular, not square.
I know, who cares?