These surveys have classically not been particularly accurate about new apple products. Even Apple's share price is low because of market feelings that apple is not a growth company compared to other tech companies.
I will bet that Apple will sell more than what this survey claims, not less.
15 Million Americans did not say any such thing...
About 1,100 of the sort of people who are online a lot and take surveys said it.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of sampling, used for everything from opinion polling to the US Census. It's perfectly valid to extrapolate from a sample, provided that the sample is properly stratified.
Thanks, I think I grasp the concept.
I'd return the favor by introducing you to the concepts of hyperbole and exaggeration,
but, apparently, it wouldn't help.
As you point out, the controls and selection process will affect the accuracy of the extrapolation,
but it's still true that 15 million people didn't say it, and, by pointing out that this is an online survey,
I suggested that the results might even be skewed towards the tastes of tech-savvy folks,
not necessarily indicative of the buying public at large...
Doesn't mean 15 million people (or less, or way more) won't buy it,
just means this survey is unlikely to indicate anything about overall sales,
or the long-term establishment of a robust new product category.
I'd return the favor by introducing you to the concepts of hyperbole and exaggeration,
but, apparently, it wouldn't help.
As you point out, the controls and selection process will affect the accuracy of the extrapolation,
but it's still true that 15 million people didn't say it, and, by pointing out that this is an online survey,
I suggested that the results might even be skewed towards the tastes of tech-savvy folks,
not necessarily indicative of the buying public at large...
Doesn't mean 15 million people (or less, or way more) won't buy it,
just means this survey is unlikely to indicate anything about overall sales,
or the long-term establishment of a robust new product category.
So now it's "hyperbole and exaggeration" to point out that sampling is a valid form of statistical analysis? Perhaps it would be similarly hyperbolic to suggest that the sun rises in the east. You never know, it could be wrong.
Nothing in the survey as it was presented implies that the sample was self-selected.
The article mentions a margin of error cited by the survey company, so it sounds like they were using a statistical method. In any case I would not assume that it's a bogus result.
Yes - did I read it right? 6% of Americans plan to purchase +/-2.6%? The projection is barely above noise level, although even if only 3.4% want them, it's still a lot of watches.
So I had a try-on appointment yesterday. My store is not located in a teeming metropolis, but it's big enough.
Yesterday, at least, the appointment would not have been necessary. One of the large tables had been converted into four watch try-on stations, and across from it, another table had most of the permutations set up to view, in both sizes. Including the Editions.
Like others, I took pics of my choices alongside my daily driver, and, like others, the resulting pictures don't adequately convey how GREAT these models look and feel in person.
Someone here (days ago) described the taptic feel as a "buzz"... they couldn't be more wrong. The description of a "tap" is quite apt. Tap your wrist with your index finger semi-firmly, and that's pretty close to how this feels.
The digital crown is so smooth... you know how, turning some analog dials, you can sense some occasional gear friction? None of that here, nor any detente feel (which I was half expecting). And it's not so free-spinning that it could slip accidentally. Seems like the team got the feel of this just perfectly.
In terms of case appearance, the Sport seems reminiscent of say, a really high-end Casio, or a low-to-medium range Seiko. But that Stainless is another matter: that is really, really nice (and don't get me started on the black SS, wow). I could live with ANY of the straps, they were all exceedingly comfortable to wear.
My assistant was appropriately enthusiastic about the product (without going overboard), and quick to assist in getting the watches on and off my wrist. And he was exceedingly patient with all my questions. (He confirmed that, even here, several pre-orders for the Edition had already been processed there in the store. Wow.)
By the way, when he demonstrated changing the straps, he went out of the way to point out the diagnostic interface (hidden pins). Not sure why, except that I may have telegraphed my geekiness in advance.
The only thing that bothered me even a little was registering the double tap of the side button to wake the demo display. I had trouble with both the timing of the taps, and had to be patient for the wakeup to occur. There was about a full second between the double tap, and for the display to appear. I'm sure that I would get used to both in short order, but for something that's designed to be used in mere seconds, I was expecting at least the wakeup responsiveness of my 4S. The fact that it was initiating a demo may have had something to do with it. The functional (nonwearable) example were appropriately snappy from the home screen, though, and within the native apps.
One final personal "thing"... it was obvious that the 38 had the right proportions for my particular wrist; and yet, the 42 had the display size for these aging eyes. I will have to compromise, somewhere along the way.
And I have to get a newer phone, too, haha...
Thanks for the detailed and articulate impressions. More insightful than most full reviews I've read.
Yes - did I read it right? 6% of Americans plan to purchase +/-2.6%? The projection is barely above noise level, although even if only 3.4% want them, it's still a lot of watches.
Did you actually read the Reuters article? They got 15M by taking 6% of the census population of 250M. The error range of 5.2% is almost the magnitude of the 6% they're reporting. This is a meaningless result.
Correct you are... The critical selection rule that determines accuracy is the poll must be 'random.'
No matter what the sample size, the results are garbage if the subjects are not selected randomly.... Which I am sure Reuters understands the importance of that methodology.
(I was not the best college student, but I did get an A in my Intro Probability course.)
Who your actually polling is also very important, those random people must be representative of the underlying population you want info on (like say, what phone high school students' will buy in the next year).
This can be very tricky as some people are very hard to reach, and those in that population you actually reach through various means, are not in fact representative of the whole group. The more niche and stratified the group is, the harder it is to get representative numbers from polling.
Past a certain point, you forget the polls and go straight for qualitative info through focus groups and merely use polls to indicated trends.
For example, if you're trying to reach high school student by phone, those that your reach won't be the average high school student even if your phone number selection is random. Or you do Internet panel polls of teens, where those that will participate in those will be a lot more educated on average than the rest of the high school teen population.
Past a certain point, you forget the polls and go straight for more qualitative info through focus groups and merely use polls to indicated trends.
Did you actually read the Reuters article? They got 15M by taking 6% of the census population of 250M. The error range of 5.2% is almost the magnitude of the 6% they're reporting. This is a meaningless result.
You betray a complete and total lack ignorance of statistics in general and sampling in particular. In fact, your error is a very common mistake for people who don't understand the field.
For the benefit of other members of this forum, the error in the survey is determined by its standard deviation and the size on the sample. The relative sizes of the sample and the response has little to do with anything.
Because you don't understand statistics, you did not know that the 2.4% error is not 2.4% of the general population. The 6% affirmative response is 6% of the general population. The 2.4% is 2.4% of the standard deviation of the affirmative responses. In other words, the 2.4% and the 6% are percentages of very different numbers. The standard deviation is a small fraction of the sample size. The 2.4% of the standard deviation is a small fraction the 6% rate of affirmative responses. Suffice it also to say that the survey results are very meaningful.
You are absolutely correct. Its not a watch and it's not an iPhone/ computer. It's an accessory! Without the iPhone the watch is a watch. Period.But the iPhone will remain all that it is! I was there for the first iPhone too. It performed as a communications device exceptionally. The AW now performs 3 of 10 functions with the rest "coming soon ". Reviewers got two bands. One for dress and one for exercise. Hmmm. That's interesting.
Remember that we all stopped wearing watches because they got in the way, helped us develop Carpal tunnel syndrome, and proved themselves completely unnecessary once we owned an iPhone. Jewelry stores are full of used Rolex watches at nice prices. No one wants them. No one needs them.Except for body function monitoring, the AW only delivers an extended iPhone experience. It does not do more, it only makes the tech cost more. Apple has yet to tell us how often the Watch will be upgraded. It will turn out to be, if upgraged yearly, the most expensive accessory in tech history.
One reviewer called the AW an annoying intrusion as it continually demands attention for emails, text messages, tweets, And other notifications. Apple Pay requires the user to place the Watch face down on the terminal demanding one's wrist be turned topside down which is an awkward gesture for anyone. Try placing the top of your wrist on top of a counter and you'll get the idea.
Yes, we all would like to try one. But having isn't the same as wanting. It is not a needed accessory. Lovely design for sure. Needed. Hardly. There 17 million people in the greater Los Angeles area. If Apple sells 2 million watches it wouldn't pay for the advertising and marketing and PR spent to get the world to take interest in the product.
The proff will be in the second and third sales numbers after each yearly release and if people adopt the accessory. It is not a neccessary accessory. Nices, yes. Neccessary, no.
15 Million Americans did not say any such thing...
About 1,100 of the sort of people who are online a lot and take surveys said it.
It'll be nice if there are this many sales, or two times 15m, or eight times 15m,
but this is hardly any kind of a representative sample,
and the headline should be phrased more responsibly, imho.
While the headline is inaccurate, your line above (emphasis mine) is just as inaccurate and inflammatory. They did not just throw a poll out of their ass on AI or something, this is Reuters, who know how to poll and they know what response rates are. Maybe you should practice what you preach, or at least understand how statistics actually works.
It was indeed a representative sample, and has the margin of error to show you how representative it was. The margin of error was +/-2.6%, so there is a 95% probability the actual number is between 3.4% and 8.6% of American adults, or between 8.5 and 21.5 million people.
While the headline is inaccurate, your line above (emphasis mine) is just as inaccurate and inflammatory. They did not just throw a poll out of their ass on AI or something, this is Reuters, who know how to poll and they know what response rates are. Maybe you should practice what you preach, or at least understand how statistics actually works.
It was indeed a representative sample, and has the margin of error to show you how representative it was. The margin of error was +/-2.6%, so there is a 95% probability the actual number is between 3.4% and 8.6% of American adults, or between 8.5 and 21.5 million people.
Reuters did not conduct the poll, they reported on a poll conducted by a market research company. Anyway, reporting statistical results to the public is pretty much a lost cause. The vast majority of people don't understand them at all, and because they don't understand them, assume that they lack any basis in reality.
The article mentions a margin of error cited by the survey company, so it sounds like they were using a statistical method. In any case I would not assume that it's a bogus result.
I'm not assuming it is a bogus result, but I am saying that it there is not enough information available to judge how accurate it is. Anyone with a spreadsheet can compute a margin of error, but if your sample is systematically skewed then it is still not a good survey. They also mentioned that they adjusted the outcome based on US Census demographic data, which is a good sign, but doesn't address their initial sampling methodology.
In short, the result is interesting, but it needs more detail to judge how accurate it could be.
I'm not assuming it is a bogus result, but I am saying that it there is not enough information available to judge how accurate it is. Anyone with a spreadsheet can compute a margin of error, but if your sample is systematically skewed then it is still not a good survey. They also mentioned that they adjusted the outcome based on US Census demographic data, which is a good sign, but doesn't address their initial sampling methodology.
In short, the result is interesting, but it needs more detail to judge how accurate it could be.
Reuters doesn't tend to report garbage polls (the general media at large tend to do that, reporting special interest polls as fact for instance). Pretty sure if you find the source for this poll if you dig a bit and have most (if not all) of your answers.
Reuters did not conduct the poll, they reported on a poll conducted by a market research company. Anyway, reporting statistical results to the public is pretty much a lost cause. The vast majority of people don't understand them at all, and because they don't understand them, assume that they lack any basis in reality.
Then what exactly is this:
"About 6 percent of U.S. adults plan to buy Apple Inc's smartwatch according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll"
Ipsos is a market research company. Maybe they were commissioned by Reuters to run the survey, I don't know. I'm just telling you what is in the story. I can't explain the rest of the universe.
Ipsos is a market research company. Maybe they were commissioned by Reuters to run the survey, I don't know. I'm just telling you what is in the story. I can't explain the rest of the universe.
Well, fortunately for you, I can. Reuters and Ipsos go hand in hand, whether it be business trends, political opinions, or even national elections.
When someone says "it's a Reuters poll" - this is exactly what you get.
Well, fortunately for you, I can. Reuters and Ipsos go hand in hand, whether it be business trends, political opinions, or even national elections.
When someone says "it's a Reuters poll" - this is exactly what you get.
Lovely. With about five seconds of research, I was able to find out that Reuters contracts with Ipsos to conduct their surveys. Good luck with the rest of the universe.
Comments
I will bet that Apple will sell more than what this survey claims, not less.
15 Million Americans did not say any such thing...
About 1,100 of the sort of people who are online a lot and take surveys said it.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of sampling, used for everything from opinion polling to the US Census. It's perfectly valid to extrapolate from a sample, provided that the sample is properly stratified.
Thanks, I think I grasp the concept.
I'd return the favor by introducing you to the concepts of hyperbole and exaggeration,
but, apparently, it wouldn't help.
As you point out, the controls and selection process will affect the accuracy of the extrapolation,
but it's still true that 15 million people didn't say it, and, by pointing out that this is an online survey,
I suggested that the results might even be skewed towards the tastes of tech-savvy folks,
not necessarily indicative of the buying public at large...
Doesn't mean 15 million people (or less, or way more) won't buy it,
just means this survey is unlikely to indicate anything about overall sales,
or the long-term establishment of a robust new product category.
Thanks, I think I grasp the concept.
I'd return the favor by introducing you to the concepts of hyperbole and exaggeration,
but, apparently, it wouldn't help.
As you point out, the controls and selection process will affect the accuracy of the extrapolation,
but it's still true that 15 million people didn't say it, and, by pointing out that this is an online survey,
I suggested that the results might even be skewed towards the tastes of tech-savvy folks,
not necessarily indicative of the buying public at large...
Doesn't mean 15 million people (or less, or way more) won't buy it,
just means this survey is unlikely to indicate anything about overall sales,
or the long-term establishment of a robust new product category.
So now it's "hyperbole and exaggeration" to point out that sampling is a valid form of statistical analysis? Perhaps it would be similarly hyperbolic to suggest that the sun rises in the east. You never know, it could be wrong.
Nothing in the survey as it was presented implies that the sample was self-selected.
Yes - did I read it right? 6% of Americans plan to purchase +/-2.6%? The projection is barely above noise level, although even if only 3.4% want them, it's still a lot of watches.
So I had a try-on appointment yesterday. My store is not located in a teeming metropolis, but it's big enough.
Yesterday, at least, the appointment would not have been necessary. One of the large tables had been converted into four watch try-on stations, and across from it, another table had most of the permutations set up to view, in both sizes. Including the Editions.
Like others, I took pics of my choices alongside my daily driver, and, like others, the resulting pictures don't adequately convey how GREAT these models look and feel in person.
Someone here (days ago) described the taptic feel as a "buzz"... they couldn't be more wrong. The description of a "tap" is quite apt. Tap your wrist with your index finger semi-firmly, and that's pretty close to how this feels.
The digital crown is so smooth... you know how, turning some analog dials, you can sense some occasional gear friction? None of that here, nor any detente feel (which I was half expecting). And it's not so free-spinning that it could slip accidentally. Seems like the team got the feel of this just perfectly.
In terms of case appearance, the Sport seems reminiscent of say, a really high-end Casio, or a low-to-medium range Seiko. But that Stainless is another matter: that is really, really nice (and don't get me started on the black SS, wow). I could live with ANY of the straps, they were all exceedingly comfortable to wear.
My assistant was appropriately enthusiastic about the product (without going overboard), and quick to assist in getting the watches on and off my wrist. And he was exceedingly patient with all my questions. (He confirmed that, even here, several pre-orders for the Edition had already been processed there in the store. Wow.)
By the way, when he demonstrated changing the straps, he went out of the way to point out the diagnostic interface (hidden pins). Not sure why, except that I may have telegraphed my geekiness in advance.
The only thing that bothered me even a little was registering the double tap of the side button to wake the demo display. I had trouble with both the timing of the taps, and had to be patient for the wakeup to occur. There was about a full second between the double tap, and for the display to appear. I'm sure that I would get used to both in short order, but for something that's designed to be used in mere seconds, I was expecting at least the wakeup responsiveness of my 4S. The fact that it was initiating a demo may have had something to do with it. The functional (nonwearable) example were appropriately snappy from the home screen, though, and within the native apps.
One final personal "thing"... it was obvious that the 38 had the right proportions for my particular wrist; and yet, the 42 had the display size for these aging eyes. I will have to compromise, somewhere along the way.
And I have to get a newer phone, too, haha...
Thanks for the detailed and articulate impressions. More insightful than most full reviews I've read.
Did you actually read the Reuters article? They got 15M by taking 6% of the census population of 250M. The error range of 5.2% is almost the magnitude of the 6% they're reporting. This is a meaningless result.
Correct you are... The critical selection rule that determines accuracy is the poll must be 'random.'
No matter what the sample size, the results are garbage if the subjects are not selected randomly.... Which I am sure Reuters understands the importance of that methodology.
(I was not the best college student, but I did get an A in my Intro Probability course.)
Who your actually polling is also very important, those random people must be representative of the underlying population you want info on (like say, what phone high school students' will buy in the next year).
This can be very tricky as some people are very hard to reach, and those in that population you actually reach through various means, are not in fact representative of the whole group. The more niche and stratified the group is, the harder it is to get representative numbers from polling.
Past a certain point, you forget the polls and go straight for qualitative info through focus groups and merely use polls to indicated trends.
For example, if you're trying to reach high school student by phone, those that your reach won't be the average high school student even if your phone number selection is random. Or you do Internet panel polls of teens, where those that will participate in those will be a lot more educated on average than the rest of the high school teen population.
Past a certain point, you forget the polls and go straight for more qualitative info through focus groups and merely use polls to indicated trends.
For the benefit of other members of this forum, the error in the survey is determined by its standard deviation and the size on the sample. The relative sizes of the sample and the response has little to do with anything.
Because you don't understand statistics, you did not know that the 2.4% error is not 2.4% of the general population. The 6% affirmative response is 6% of the general population. The 2.4% is 2.4% of the standard deviation of the affirmative responses. In other words, the 2.4% and the 6% are percentages of very different numbers. The standard deviation is a small fraction of the sample size. The 2.4% of the standard deviation is a small fraction the 6% rate of affirmative responses. Suffice it also to say that the survey results are very meaningful.
Remember that we all stopped wearing watches because they got in the way, helped us develop Carpal tunnel syndrome, and proved themselves completely unnecessary once we owned an iPhone. Jewelry stores are full of used Rolex watches at nice prices. No one wants them. No one needs them.Except for body function monitoring, the AW only delivers an extended iPhone experience. It does not do more, it only makes the tech cost more. Apple has yet to tell us how often the Watch will be upgraded. It will turn out to be, if upgraged yearly, the most expensive accessory in tech history.
One reviewer called the AW an annoying intrusion as it continually demands attention for emails, text messages, tweets, And other notifications. Apple Pay requires the user to place the Watch face down on the terminal demanding one's wrist be turned topside down which is an awkward gesture for anyone. Try placing the top of your wrist on top of a counter and you'll get the idea.
Yes, we all would like to try one. But having isn't the same as wanting. It is not a needed accessory. Lovely design for sure. Needed. Hardly. There 17 million people in the greater Los Angeles area. If Apple sells 2 million watches it wouldn't pay for the advertising and marketing and PR spent to get the world to take interest in the product.
The proff will be in the second and third sales numbers after each yearly release and if people adopt the accessory. It is not a neccessary accessory. Nices, yes. Neccessary, no.
15 Million Americans did not say any such thing...
About 1,100 of the sort of people who are online a lot and take surveys said it.
It'll be nice if there are this many sales, or two times 15m, or eight times 15m,
but this is hardly any kind of a representative sample,
and the headline should be phrased more responsibly, imho.
While the headline is inaccurate, your line above (emphasis mine) is just as inaccurate and inflammatory. They did not just throw a poll out of their ass on AI or something, this is Reuters, who know how to poll and they know what response rates are. Maybe you should practice what you preach, or at least understand how statistics actually works.
It was indeed a representative sample, and has the margin of error to show you how representative it was. The margin of error was +/-2.6%, so there is a 95% probability the actual number is between 3.4% and 8.6% of American adults, or between 8.5 and 21.5 million people.
While the headline is inaccurate, your line above (emphasis mine) is just as inaccurate and inflammatory. They did not just throw a poll out of their ass on AI or something, this is Reuters, who know how to poll and they know what response rates are. Maybe you should practice what you preach, or at least understand how statistics actually works.
It was indeed a representative sample, and has the margin of error to show you how representative it was. The margin of error was +/-2.6%, so there is a 95% probability the actual number is between 3.4% and 8.6% of American adults, or between 8.5 and 21.5 million people.
Reuters did not conduct the poll, they reported on a poll conducted by a market research company. Anyway, reporting statistical results to the public is pretty much a lost cause. The vast majority of people don't understand them at all, and because they don't understand them, assume that they lack any basis in reality.
The article mentions a margin of error cited by the survey company, so it sounds like they were using a statistical method. In any case I would not assume that it's a bogus result.
I'm not assuming it is a bogus result, but I am saying that it there is not enough information available to judge how accurate it is. Anyone with a spreadsheet can compute a margin of error, but if your sample is systematically skewed then it is still not a good survey. They also mentioned that they adjusted the outcome based on US Census demographic data, which is a good sign, but doesn't address their initial sampling methodology.
In short, the result is interesting, but it needs more detail to judge how accurate it could be.
I'm not assuming it is a bogus result, but I am saying that it there is not enough information available to judge how accurate it is. Anyone with a spreadsheet can compute a margin of error, but if your sample is systematically skewed then it is still not a good survey. They also mentioned that they adjusted the outcome based on US Census demographic data, which is a good sign, but doesn't address their initial sampling methodology.
In short, the result is interesting, but it needs more detail to judge how accurate it could be.
Reuters doesn't tend to report garbage polls (the general media at large tend to do that, reporting special interest polls as fact for instance). Pretty sure if you find the source for this poll if you dig a bit and have most (if not all) of your answers.
Reuters did not conduct the poll, they reported on a poll conducted by a market research company. Anyway, reporting statistical results to the public is pretty much a lost cause. The vast majority of people don't understand them at all, and because they don't understand them, assume that they lack any basis in reality.
Then what exactly is this:
"About 6 percent of U.S. adults plan to buy Apple Inc's smartwatch according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll"
from the Reuters story?
It IS a Reuters poll.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/reuters-polls/
Then what exactly is this:
"About 6 percent of U.S. adults plan to buy Apple Inc's smartwatch according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll"
from the Reuters story?
It IS a Reuters poll.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/reuters-polls/
This.
This.
WTH?
This:
http://polling.reuters.com/
They are Ipsos' media partner.
WTH?
This:
http://polling.reuters.com/
Ipsos is a market research company. Maybe they were commissioned by Reuters to run the survey, I don't know. I'm just telling you what is in the story. I can't explain the rest of the universe.
Ipsos is a market research company. Maybe they were commissioned by Reuters to run the survey, I don't know. I'm just telling you what is in the story. I can't explain the rest of the universe.
Well, fortunately for you, I can. Reuters and Ipsos go hand in hand, whether it be business trends, political opinions, or even national elections.
When someone says "it's a Reuters poll" - this is exactly what you get.
Well, fortunately for you, I can. Reuters and Ipsos go hand in hand, whether it be business trends, political opinions, or even national elections.
When someone says "it's a Reuters poll" - this is exactly what you get.
Lovely. With about five seconds of research, I was able to find out that Reuters contracts with Ipsos to conduct their surveys. Good luck with the rest of the universe.