Let's see, the Wallstreet PowerBook G3's...plagued by shipping issues, hardware defects, finally they had to release the "PDQ" model to alleviate the issues and try to get things back on track.
The Power Mac G4, initially was to ship at 400/450/500MHz speeds. Guess what? Motorola couldn't get the chips done, so Apple speed dumped the machines, without lowering the prices. Paid for a 500MHz unit? You got 450MHz instead, at the price the 500MHz cost.
The Power Macintosh 8600 and 9600's top end models were delayed for months due to supply issues with the 604ev Mach V processors.
Guess what? All of that happened under Jobs! And all of it was with seriously new technology at the time. Things happen.
This is a *bit* disingenuous. People were told that this was not only a new product, but a whole new retail experience. As that hasn't panned out, there's scores of people who trot out the "well, look at these other delays." That's a red herring. It doesn't matter how long someone waited for a Wallstreet PowerBook G3 or their iPhone 6. What I'm hearing is, "you have yourself to blame, it's just like other product launches, so be quiet" when that was *not* the impression given by the campaign for the watch. "The Watch is here," is bemusing, considering that you cannot physically get one from an Apple Store. (Its availability at certain boutique stores is not exactly the same thing or particularly convincing metric for a nationwide rollout). This is not a personal criticism against you, understand, but it's a bit like listening to Rob Gronkowski complaining about Deflategate because no one has mentioned "all the good things football players do." That's not the point. (And I'm not equating you with him because, frankly, he's a complete meathead.)
Reminds me of people who never post anything in the forums unless it's "FIRST POST!!!"
You appear to be only interested in being the first on your block to have one. You aren't really interested in owning the Apple Watch and/or you lack the patience and perseverance needed to accomplish that goal. (Let that be a lesson, kids: don't be like this guy.)
And BTW, my space gray 42mm shipped on time, just so put your little "rage cancel" rant in perspective.
Good news: Samsung has plenty of unloved dork watches they'd be happy to send you from dusty warehouses. No waiting.
So we have two things: his "rage cancel" rant vs your smug, condescending manner.
I guess people here get offended for Apple too easily.
I don't blame Apple for the Apple Watch to take so long to launch. They could have said it will launch in August and it would have been just as fine. The problem is not even the time between pre-order date and shipment. The only problem is the launch date which implys this was the day people expected the watch to actually launch on that day which did not happen - at least not as a mass produced product. It is not spoiled to expect a companies communication to be accurate. That is a basic requirement for any company.
I'm curious how an investment firm would know if someone is the sole supplier for a component or not. I highly doubt Apple is giving up that kind of information so where are they getting it from?
For many components, it is as simple as dissembling the watch and reading the logo on the side of the component. Other times you may have to decipher a part number on the package or even remove the chip's package and look at the silicon to know.
Do this with enough watches and if you get the same supplier each time you can build up a statistical probability that they are the sole source.
... Now we're to believe that Apple has engineered their supply chain with only single suppliers for each component. UBS clearly knows nothing of what they speak.
No, The UBS report said Apple "...is favoring sole-sourcing for "many components." – "many components" implies more than one, "each component" would imply that all components are single source, which is not the case, nor has UBS said so.
For many components, it is as simple as dissembling the watch and reading the logo on the side of the component. Other times you may have to decipher a part number on the package or even remove the chip's package and look at the silicon to know.
Do this with enough watches and if you get the same supplier each time you can build up a statistical probability that they are the sole source.
I doubt, with the current supply constraints and trickle batch delivery, anyone could have a statistically significant anything from the current output.
According to Quanta, the Apple Watch manufacturer, they're now up to speed and running at full production on the "un-named" smart-watch. Little doubt they're speaking of Apple's product. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20150515PD210.html
Comments
LOL. Right. You're definitely well-informed.
Let's see, the Wallstreet PowerBook G3's...plagued by shipping issues, hardware defects, finally they had to release the "PDQ" model to alleviate the issues and try to get things back on track.
The Power Mac G4, initially was to ship at 400/450/500MHz speeds. Guess what? Motorola couldn't get the chips done, so Apple speed dumped the machines, without lowering the prices. Paid for a 500MHz unit? You got 450MHz instead, at the price the 500MHz cost.
The Power Macintosh 8600 and 9600's top end models were delayed for months due to supply issues with the 604ev Mach V processors.
Guess what? All of that happened under Jobs! And all of it was with seriously new technology at the time. Things happen.
This is a *bit* disingenuous. People were told that this was not only a new product, but a whole new retail experience. As that hasn't panned out, there's scores of people who trot out the "well, look at these other delays." That's a red herring. It doesn't matter how long someone waited for a Wallstreet PowerBook G3 or their iPhone 6. What I'm hearing is, "you have yourself to blame, it's just like other product launches, so be quiet" when that was *not* the impression given by the campaign for the watch. "The Watch is here," is bemusing, considering that you cannot physically get one from an Apple Store. (Its availability at certain boutique stores is not exactly the same thing or particularly convincing metric for a nationwide rollout). This is not a personal criticism against you, understand, but it's a bit like listening to Rob Gronkowski complaining about Deflategate because no one has mentioned "all the good things football players do." That's not the point. (And I'm not equating you with him because, frankly, he's a complete meathead.)
Can't understand all those whiners. This is the best product launch ever
Reminds me of people who never post anything in the forums unless it's "FIRST POST!!!"
You appear to be only interested in being the first on your block to have one. You aren't really interested in owning the Apple Watch and/or you lack the patience and perseverance needed to accomplish that goal. (Let that be a lesson, kids: don't be like this guy.)
And BTW, my space gray 42mm shipped on time, just so put your little "rage cancel" rant in perspective.
Good news: Samsung has plenty of unloved dork watches they'd be happy to send you from dusty warehouses. No waiting.
So we have two things: his "rage cancel" rant vs your smug, condescending manner.
I guess people here get offended for Apple too easily.
I don't blame Apple for the Apple Watch to take so long to launch. They could have said it will launch in August and it would have been just as fine. The problem is not even the time between pre-order date and shipment. The only problem is the launch date which implys this was the day people expected the watch to actually launch on that day which did not happen - at least not as a mass produced product. It is not spoiled to expect a companies communication to be accurate. That is a basic requirement for any company.
Hi Sebastian,
I agree with you.
I'm curious how an investment firm would know if someone is the sole supplier for a component or not. I highly doubt Apple is giving up that kind of information so where are they getting it from?
For many components, it is as simple as dissembling the watch and reading the logo on the side of the component. Other times you may have to decipher a part number on the package or even remove the chip's package and look at the silicon to know.
Do this with enough watches and if you get the same supplier each time you can build up a statistical probability that they are the sole source.
... Now we're to believe that Apple has engineered their supply chain with only single suppliers for each component. UBS clearly knows nothing of what they speak.
No, The UBS report said Apple "...is favoring sole-sourcing for "many components." – "many components" implies more than one, "each component" would imply that all components are single source, which is not the case, nor has UBS said so.
For many components, it is as simple as dissembling the watch and reading the logo on the side of the component. Other times you may have to decipher a part number on the package or even remove the chip's package and look at the silicon to know.
Do this with enough watches and if you get the same supplier each time you can build up a statistical probability that they are the sole source.
I doubt, with the current supply constraints and trickle batch delivery, anyone could have a statistically significant anything from the current output.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20150515PD210.html